Dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 is a significant decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the context of a dispute between José Eduardo dos Santos, the former President of Angola, and Unitel SA, a major Angolan telecommunications company. The case highlights important issues related to jurisdiction, the scope of arbitral awards, and the enforcement of foreign judgments under English law.
The dispute arose from a long-running legal battle between José Eduardo dos Santos, a former political leader, and Unitel SA, a company in which dos Santos had significant interests. The core issue centred on alleged breaches of a shareholders’ agreement between dos Santos and the company. Dos Santos claimed that he had been unfairly excluded from the decision-making process in Unitel and sought redress in the courts, including through international arbitration.
In 2017, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) issued a partial award in favour of dos Santos, ordering Unitel SA to pay significant compensation. However, Unitel contested the enforcement of the award, arguing that it should not be recognized or enforced under the United Kingdom’s Arbitration Act 1996 or international conventions, particularly the New York Convention, to which both Angola and the United Kingdom are signatories.
The key legal issue in *Dos Santos v Unitel SA* was whether the partial arbitral award rendered in favor of dos Santos should be enforced by the English courts. Unitel opposed the enforcement on various grounds, including claims that the arbitral award was tainted by corruption, and that enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
Additionally, Unitel sought to argue that the English court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the foreign award because the dispute did not have sufficient connection to England. The case raised broader issues of how English courts apply the principle of “comity” in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, particularly in situations involving political figures and the potential for abuse of legal processes.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered in 2024, upheld the lower court’s decision to enforce the arbitral award. The court emphasized that, under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, English courts are generally required to recognize and enforce arbitral awards unless there are compelling reasons for refusal, such as issues of public policy or fundamental fairness.
In this case, the Court of Appeal found no sufficient grounds to prevent enforcement. The court dismissed Unitel’s claims of corruption and emphasized that the award was not manifestly incompatible with the principles of justice. Moreover, it confirmed that English courts had jurisdiction to enforce the award, given that both parties were aware that English courts might be used for enforcement purposes, and the case had a reasonable connection to the jurisdiction.
Dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 serves as a reminder of the importance of the international framework for enforcing arbitral awards, particularly under the New York Convention. The decision reinforces the principle that arbitral awards are generally enforceable unless there are strong and specific reasons for refusal. For parties involved in international arbitration, this case underscores the need to carefully consider the grounds for contesting enforcement and the jurisdictional implications of foreign awards.
For further information on this topic or on any other legal area, please contact John Szepietowski or Kay Stewart at Audley Chaucer Solicitors on 01372 303444 or email admin@audleychaucer.com or visit our Linkedin page.
Molly Ross
This information was correct as of November 2024