England. In a decision dated January 27, 2014 in Interprods Limited

v. De La Rue International Limited [2014] EWHC 68 (Comm), the

English High Court confirmed that allegations of criminal conduct

will not prevent a tribunal from having jurisdiction to determine

contractual rights and obligations, and also provided guidance on the

meaning of “serious irregularity” for challenging an award within the

meaning of section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”). The

decision concerned an application by a Nigerian company, Interprods

Limited (“Interprods”), challenging an arbitral award under sections

67 and 68 of the Act on the grounds that: (i) the sole arbitrator lacked

jurisdiction to make the award in question; and (ii) there were serious

irregularities in the making of the award.

 

Interprods had acted as distributor and agent in Nigeria for the

respondent, De La Rue International Limited (“De La Rue”), under

various agency agreements. De La Rue is a well-known supplier of

bank notes. At a meeting in March 2011, a representative of

Interprods, Mr. Akeju, allegedly informed De La Rue that Interprods

would use its commission to bribe Nigerian officials. De La Rue

responded by terminating the agency agreements with Interprods and,

in late November 2011, commencing LCIA arbitration proceedings

seeking a declaration that it was entitled to terminate the agency
agreements and was not obliged to pay any further commission.