Senior Associate | Legal
No Content Set
The Privy Council has handed down its much anticipated decision in Gol Linhas Aereas SA (formerly VRG Linhas Aereas SA) (Respondent) v MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP and others (Appellants) (Cayman Islands)  UKPC 21 on the interpretation of Article V of the New York Convention. The Privy Council confirmed that an ICC arbitration award obtained in favour of Gol Linhas Aereas SA (Gol) for R$92,987,672 (the Award) was enforceable in the Cayman Islands and that the grounds upon which the appellants (the MP Funds) sought to challenge the Award had already been raised (and dismissed) before the courts in Brazil giving rise to an issue estoppel.
Ogier successfully acted for Gol with Leading Counsel, Tom Lowe QC of Wilberforce Chambers, and Gol's Brazilian counsel, Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr e Quiroga Advogados.
The decision addresses important questions with respect to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards which are the subject of robust challenge before the courts of a supervisory jurisdiction and will be of interest to all practitioners, especially those in common law jurisdictions who seek to enforce arbitral awards obtained in civil law jurisdictions.
A detailed summary of the background to these proceedings is set out in our briefing summarising the Court of Appeal decision.  In short, the first and second appellants (the MP Funds) are a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership and a Delaware limited partnership respectively, which together conduct business as a private equity investment fund, specialising in "distressed investing". The third appellant is the general partner (General Partner) of the two limited partnerships. Gol is a company in a Brazilian airline group that conducts business under the name of Gol Airlines.
A dispute arose between Gol and the MP Funds under a Share Purchase and Sale Agreement dated 28 March 2007 (PSA) for the sale of shares in the company which operated Gol Airlines. The MP Funds were not named as parties and did not sign the PSA but were signatories to an addendum which supplemented its terms. The PSA contained an arbitration agreement which provided that all disputes arising from or related to the PSA were to be resolved by arbitration, that the language of the arbitration shall be in Portuguese and that the place of arbitration will be the city of São Paulo. The arbitration agreement was also governed by the laws of Brazil.
Gol commenced an arbitration against not only the sellers under the PSA but also against the MP Funds, premised on inter alia a fraudulent manipulation of figures for working capital on which the purchase price under the PSA was based.
The MP Funds disputed the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over them in circumstances where they were not parties to the PSA itself. This was rejected by the tribunal who in a preliminary decision held that the MP Funds had in effect added themselves as parties by agreeing to a non-compete covenant. The MP Funds contended that any submission to the arbitration could only relate to the non-compete covenant. Gol had argued that the MP Funds were liable for misusing the corporate veil.
In September 2010 the tribunal issued its final Award and in doing so found the MP Funds liable on the basis of the tort of third party malice pursuant to Article 148 of the Brazilian Civil Code. Neither the parties nor the tribunal had mentioned third party malice. The tribunal nevertheless made the finding under the civil law doctrine of "iura novit curia", a fundamental and well-known doctrine of Brazilian practice, which means that a court (as opposed to the parties) is charged with characterising the facts and applying the law to the facts.
The MP Funds challenged the Award before the supervisory court in Brazil on a number of grounds under the Brazilian Arbitration Act, arguing that there was no arbitration agreement, the Award was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement to which they were parties (the non-compete clause) and the terms of reference. They also argued that there was a lack of due process as a result of the tribunal's reliance on Article 148. These grounds were equivalent to those which were later used under Article V of the New York Convention, as the Privy Council observed. The MP Funds were unsuccessful at first instance and in their appeal to the São Paulo Court of Appeals. Their subsequent applications for leave to appeal to the Brazilian Supreme Court and Constitutional Courts were finally dismissed after 10 years.
Gol sought and obtained, on an ex-parte basis, leave to enforce the Award against the MP Funds and the General Partner in the Cayman Islands. However, the order was subsequently set aside by Justice Mangatal at the inter-partes stage.
The MP Funds challenged the enforcement of the Award before Justice Mangatal on various grounds, including that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement under the PSA and that the arbitral tribunal had decided the case on a legal basis (Article 148) that had never been pleaded or argued, such that it offends the principle of natural justice. Gol argued that the MP Funds were bound by issue estoppel based on the Brazilian court decisions. At first instance the judge upheld all the grounds of challenge and refused enforcement of the Award, setting aside the ex parte order. The Cayman Court of Appeal (CICA) allowed Gol's appeal on all grounds, finding among other things that the MP Funds were estopped from challenging the Brazilian court decisions handed down on the arbitrators' jurisdiction.
The MP Funds filed an appeal to the Privy Council seeking again to challenge the enforcement of the Award. The issues considered by the Privy Council on the appeal were: (i) whether the CICA was wrong to find that the MP Funds were precluded by issue estoppel from resisting enforcement pursuant to Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement; (ii) whether the CICA was wrong to reject the natural justice argument under Article V(1)(b) and/or Article V(2)(b); (iii) whether the CICA was wrong to find that the award was not outside the terms of reference under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention.
As referred to above, the MP Funds resisted enforcement of the Award on the basis that they purportedly never agreed to arbitration of the dispute because they were not party to the arbitration agreement. Gol submitted that this issue had already been decided adversely to the MP Funds by the Brazilian courts and that the decisions of the Brazilian courts were conclusive for the purposes of these proceedings as it falls within the doctrine of issue estoppel.
The Privy Council noted that the doctrine of issue estoppel supports the important public policy of finality in litigation and ensures that the same parties should not have to litigate the same issue twice, relying on Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)  1 AC 853 for the proposition that issue estoppel can arise on the basis of a foreign judgment. To give rise to such an issue estoppel, three requirements must be satisfied with respect to the judgment: Firstly, the judgment must be (a) given by a court of a foreign country with jurisdiction to give it, and (b) final and conclusive on the merits. Second, the parties in the two actions must be the same. Third, the issue decided by the foreign court must be the same as the issue in the domestic proceedings.
The Privy Council noted that a foreign judgment which satisfies the requirements for recognition at common law cannot be impeached for any error either of fact or law: it is therefore irrelevant whether the domestic court would regard the reasoning of the foreign judgment as open to criticism or even as “manifestly wrong”.
With respect to the above requirements, the Privy Council concluded that:
The second ground on which enforcement of the Award was resisted was on the basis that the tribunal's decision to adopt a legal basis for the Award which was not raised by Gol throughout the arbitration amounted to a serious breach of natural justice or lack of due process, such that MP Funds were “unable to present [their] case” under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and section 7(2)(c) of the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Act 1975 (1997 Revision) (1975 Act) on the ground that it would be contrary to the public policy of the Cayman Islands to enforce the Award in such circumstances. Although Mangatal J agreed, the Court of Appeal rejected the challenge.
The Privy Council essentially devised an international standard of due process which could be developed and applied by any jurisdiction. It noted that before determining this issue, it was necessary to identify the system of law and the standard which the court should apply in answering this question. The Privy Council undertook an analysis and comparison of the standards of procedural due process to which foreign arbitral awards are subject in various jurisdictions (noting that there was little authority on the question in England and Wales). It reasoned that:
In the context of the proceedings, the Privy Council accepted that to decide a case on the basis of a significant factual allegation or evidence of which a party has not been informed and given an opportunity to answer is fundamentally unfair. However, whether the same approach should be applied to the legal basis on which a tribunal based its decision was not straightforward. The question had to be looked at in context. Here the case was commenced in Brazil, a civil law jurisdiction where the courts and tribunals take a more proactive approach in applying the law, reflected in the doctrines of “iura novit curia” (the court knows the law) and “da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius” (give me the facts and I will give you the law). Although under the Brazilian approach, courts and arbitrators could not go beyond the allegations of fact made and relief claimed by the parties they were entitled to adopt a different legal basis from those argued by the parties.
The Privy Council was not persuaded that the failure of the tribunal to invite the MP Funds to comment on whether the facts alleged by Gol fell within Article 148 of the Civil Code amounted to so serious a denial of procedural fairness as to justify refusal to enforce the Award:
With respect to whether enforcement of the Award was contrary to Cayman Islands public policy, the Privy Council held that it would be a very strong thing for an English or Cayman court to find it contrary to the public policy of the forum to enforce an award which has been upheld by the courts with primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the arbitral process.
The MP Funds also made two arguments under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention. First, they argued that the subject matter of the Award was necessarily beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration which was limited to the non-compete covenant. The Privy Council held that this issue had already been determined by the Brazilian courts, creating an issue estoppel. Second, they also argued that the award was outside the scope of the submission to arbitration as defined by the terms of reference for the arbitration. This was a matter which had not been decided by the Brazilian Courts, but the Privy Council found that the terms of reference drawn up at the outset of the arbitration cannot properly be read as tying either the parties or the tribunal to particular legal arguments, let alone limiting them to the legal sources on which they could rely. The terms of reference were therefore given a liberal construction in keeping with the purpose of arbitration to provide a flexible and effective means of resolving disputes and providing redress.
In conclusion, the Privy Council found that the CICA was correct to conclude that none of the grounds relied on by the MP Funds justifies refusal to enforce the Award under section 7 of the 1975 Act.
Ogier has a leading offshore dispute resolution team which is increasingly involved in domestic arbitrations and regularly deals with enforcement actions in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands in particular. For further information on this decision or assistance with the enforcement of arbitral awards, please reach out to your usual Ogier contact or one of the authors of this briefing.
Written together with Tom Lowe QC of Wilberforce Chambers
Senior Associate | Legal
Partner | Legal
Oliver Payne 彭奥礼
Partner 合伙人 | Legal
Counsel | Legal
Ogier is a professional services firm with the knowledge and expertise to handle the most demanding and complex transactions and provide expert, efficient and cost-effective services to all our clients. We regularly win awards for the quality of our client service, our work and our people.
This client briefing has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Ogier. The information and expressions of opinion which it contains are not intended to be a comprehensive study or to provide legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations.
Regulatory information can be found under Legal Notice
Sign up to receive updates and newsletters from us.Sign up
No Content Set