Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Power (Private) Ltd v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited
[2024] EWHC 70 (Comm)
Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited v National Power Parks Management Company (Private) Limited
15 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 316 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies had a gas supply contract dispute that went to arbitration. One company (SNGPL) tried to overturn the result, arguing the arbitrator made a decision on something neither company had brought up. The court disagreed, saying the arbitrator focused on the right part of the contract and the decision was fair.
Key Facts
- •Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) challenged two LCIA arbitration awards in favor of National Power Parks Management Company (Private) Limited (NPPMCL).
- •The dispute arose from two Gas Supply Agreements (GSAs) where NPPMCL failed to take the full quantity of gas and SNGPL issued invoices for the shortfall.
- •SNGPL's invoices were issued late and calculated the Tariff Differential Loss (difference between full price and revenue from diverting gas to other customers).
- •NPPMCL challenged the invoices' validity, arguing they contravened the GSAs and claiming repayment of a Gas Supply Deposit.
- •The Tribunal found that SNGPL's invoicing contravened the GSA's requirement for monthly invoices.
Legal Principles
Section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows challenges to awards where the tribunal failed to act in accordance with the provisions of section 33.
Arbitration Act 1996
For a challenge under Section 68(2)(d), an issue must be sufficiently clearly drawn to the tribunal's attention that it would reasonably be expected to deal with it; it doesn't require formal pleading.
RAV Bahamas v Therapy Beach Club Inc [2021] UKPC 8
If a tribunal considers a point not raised by the parties, it must put it to them for comment.
Zermalt Holdings SA v Nu-Life Upholstery Repairs Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 14
Outcomes
SNGPL's application to set aside the awards was dismissed.
The court found that the Tribunal's decision did not require invoices to be issued before the end of the month, as SNGPL contended. The Tribunal's focus was on the monthly invoicing requirement, not the precise timing.
SNGPL's challenge to the interest rate awarded was dismissed.
The Tribunal had discretion in determining the interest rate, and its decision to use the contractually agreed rate in other circumstances was within its powers.