The High Court has recognised and enforced a partial Swedish arbitral award against Mainline Power Limited, entering judgment for VTG Entreprenad AB in the sum of SEK 69,903,610.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2024, Mr Justice David Barniville said the court was satisfied the award should be recognised and enforced under the Arbitration Act 2010, the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention.
The award, issued on 27 May 2024 by a three-member tribunal under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, arose from a dispute over VTG’s payment claims for work on the Nysäter Windfarm Project in Sweden. VTG had been engaged to excavate cable trenches, lay cables and refill the trenches. Mainline Power Limited was a party to the contract as guarantor of obligations owed by its Swedish sister company, Mainline Power Nordic AB.
The tribunal made findings against Mainline Power Limited and awarded sums to VTG. A possible set-off claimed by the respondent had been left for later determination; the figures associated with it were deducted from the amount sought in the Irish application. A further final award was expected, but had not issued by the date of the judgment.
Mainline Power Limited told the court it had serious complaints about the award, including alleged calculation errors and concerns about how the tribunal reached its findings. It described the award as flawed and open to challenge, and was considering a challenge in Sweden. However, it had not filed one by 10 July and neither consented to nor opposed the Irish application. The interim examiner appointed in connection with a separate examinership petition also took a neutral position.
The judge said the respondent was not resisting enforcement, no challenge had yet been brought in Sweden, and none of the limited grounds for resisting recognition and enforcement was being relied on. He ordered recognition and enforcement of the partial award and entered judgment for the stated sum. He also ordered the respondent to pay VTG’s costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.
The court gave liberty to apply concerning deductions in the originating notice of motion and to vary or adjust the order in light of the forthcoming final award. VTG had undertaken to seek a variation if needed to reflect any final reduction in the award amount.