Horizon Maritime Services Ltd v CNS Marine Nigeria Limited

Permission to enforce an arbitral award as a judgment may properly be combined with an order requiring disclosure of assets where the disclosure order provides a legitimate and practical benefit in enforcement. The court may support enforcement by ordering worldwide asset disclosure under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 after granting permission under section 66(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Handing an order to non-parties overseas, where it does not initiate proceedings against them, is not service requiring permission to serve out. Such delivery may nevertheless constitute personal service for contempt purposes. If contempt proceedings are later required, they must be formally served and any necessary permission obtained.

The claimant obtained four LMAA arbitration awards against the defendant, totalling substantial sums in United States dollars and pounds sterling. It applied under section 66(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for permission to enforce the awards as judgments, and under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for an affidavit disclosing worldwide assets exceeding US$10,000.

The claimant also sought permission to serve the enforcement order out of the jurisdiction on four individuals said to be directors or the company secretary of the defendant, principally in Nigeria, Italy and Switzerland. The central questions were whether permission for such service was necessary and whether the proposed delivery could have contempt consequences.

1. Enforcement and disclosure. Permission was granted under section 66(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for the awards to be enforced as if they were judgments. An order under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was also made requiring disclosure by affidavit of worldwide assets exceeding US$10,000. The court regarded the disclosure order as a legitimate benefit supporting permission to enforce. The approach was consistent with Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd, Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA and West Tankers v Allianz SpA (The Front Comor).
2. Proposed delivery to individuals. The individuals were not parties to the proceedings, and the order was not addressed to them personally. Handing or leaving copies of it with them, or at their residential addresses, would not constitute service in proceedings against them and would not initiate proceedings. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was therefore unnecessary and was refused.
3. Such delivery could nevertheless amount to personal service for the purposes of CPR 81.4(2)(c). If an individual then acted inconsistently with the order, that person might, depending on the circumstances, face a contempt application.
4. A contempt application would constitute a claim or matter in issue between the claimant and the relevant individual. It would require formal service under CPR Part 6, with permission to serve out likely being sought under CPR PD6B paragraph 3.1(24).
5. If personal service proved impossible, the court could dispense with it, but only on a high standard of proof that the individual had been fully informed of the order and its effect. The claimant could return with a fresh application if necessary.