Arbitral Digest

Matter

The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Ltd and others (High Court of Justice CL-2024-000236)

Investor-state arbitration over Kazakhstan's treatment of a uranium investment, with awards on treaty breaches and loss and English court challenges to awards.

  • Investor-state arbitration
  • Setting aside arbitral awards
  • Cross-border litigation
  • Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements
  • Energy arbitration
Seat
United Kingdom
Industry type
Mining and quarrying
Applicable rules
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976

Procedural record

  1. 19 October 2015United Kingdom

    19 October 2015United Kingdom

    Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 19 October 2015

    Decision summary
    The Full Tribunal upheld jurisdiction under the Canada-USSR investment treaty, rejecting Kazakhstan's objection that Russia rather than Kazakhstan was the successor party to the treaty.

    Participants

    Republic of Kazakhstan
    World Wide Minerals Ltd
    Paul A Carroll QC
    Institution
    Arbitrator
    Sir Franklin Berman
    Arbitrator
    Professor John Crook
    Arbitrator
    Professor Park

    Authorities cited

    1
    • Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 20 November 1989
      statute

    4 years and 10 days later · 1471 days

  2. 29 October 2019United Kingdom

    29 October 2019United Kingdom

    Final Award on Merits dated 29 October 2019

    Decision summary
    The Full Tribunal rejected all but two of the alleged treaty breaches, found Kazakhstan's termination of the Management Agreement lawful under the Treaty, found an export license breach and a bankruptcy breach, and awarded the World Wide Minerals parties compensation of US$13.7 million on a damages basis not argued by the parties.

    Participants

    Republic of Kazakhstan
    World Wide Minerals Ltd
    Paul A Carroll QC
    Institution
    Arbitrator
    Sir Franklin Berman
    Arbitrator
    Professor John Crook
    Arbitrator
    Professor Park

    Authorities cited

    1
    • Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 20 November 1989
      statute

    4 years, 4 months and 26 days later · 1610 days

  3. 26 March 2024United Kingdom

    26 March 2024United Kingdom

    Award dated 26 March 2024

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal found that Kazakhstan's export license breach was a decisive factor, together with others, in the eventual demise of World Wide Minerals' investment; awarded World Wide Minerals sunk costs of US$13.7 million; held the bankruptcy-breach claims moot; and rejected all other claims.

    Participants

    Expert evidence of Dr Newall
    Dr Newall addressed the cost of processing the ore and whether sufficient quantities could be processed to fulfil the Consumers Energy contract.
    Republic of Kazakhstan
    Expert
    PwC (For: Republic of Kazakhstan)
    Expert
    Wardell Armstrong (For: Republic of Kazakhstan)
    World Wide Minerals Ltd
    Expert
    Accuracy (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · Paul A Carroll QC)
    Expert
    Uranium Experts (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · Paul A Carroll QC)
    Paul A Carroll QC
    Expert
    Accuracy (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · Paul A Carroll QC)
    Expert
    Uranium Experts (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · Paul A Carroll QC)
    Institution
    Arbitrator
    Sir Franklin Berman
    Arbitrator
    Professor John Crook

    Authorities cited

    4
    • Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 20 November 1989
      statute
    • Arbitration Act 1996
      statute
    • The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Limited ([2020] EWHC 3068 (Comm); [2021] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 593)
      case-law
    • Pey Casado (Resubmission), award
      case-law

    11 months and 2 days later · 339 days

  4. 28 February 2025United Kingdom

    28 February 2025United Kingdom

    Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (KBD) in case CL-2024-000236 dated 28 February 2025

    High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (KBD)

    Case no.
    CL-2024-000236
    Citation
    [2025] EWHC 452 (Comm)
    Decision summary
    The court upheld Kazakhstan's challenge under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996: the Tribunal failed to address the central counterfactual case that World Wide Minerals' investment would have been lost through lawful termination of the Management Agreement even without the export license breach, causing substantial injustice. It rejected the objection under section 70(2), holding that Article 35 of the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules did not require an interpretation request where an issue had been omitted rather than ambiguously decided, and reserved the appropriate consequential relief.

    Participants

    Republic of Kazakhstan
    Representative
    Christopher Harris KC (For: Republic of Kazakhstan)
    Representative
    Paul Choon Kiat Wee (For: Republic of Kazakhstan)
    Representative
    Reed Smith LLP (For: Republic of Kazakhstan)
    World Wide Minerals Ltd
    Representative
    Philip Edey KC (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Edward Ho (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Jones Day (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    The estate of Paul A Carroll QC
    Representative
    Philip Edey KC (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Edward Ho (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Jones Day (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Catharine Carroll
    Representative
    Philip Edey KC (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Edward Ho (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    Representative
    Jones Day (For: World Wide Minerals Ltd · The estate of Paul A Carroll QC · Catharine Carroll)
    High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (KBD)
    Judge
    Mr Justice Bryan

    Authorities cited

    26
    • Arbitration Act 1996
      statute
    • UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976
      statute
    • Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA ([2005] UKHL 43)
      case-law
    • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Limited ([2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC))
      case-law
    • RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club ([2021] UKPC 8; [2021] AC 907)
      case-law
    • Vee Networks Ltd v Econet Wireless International Ltd ([2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 303)
      case-law
    • Cameroon Airlines v Transnet Ltd ([2006] TCLR 1)
      case-law
    • Ascot Commodities N.V v Olam International Ltd ([2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 277; [2002] CLC 277)
      case-law
    • Buyuk Camlica v Progress Bulk Carriers ([2010] EWHC 442 (Comm))
      case-law
    • Czech Republic v Diag Human SE ([2024] EWHC 503 (Comm))
      case-law
    • Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 20 November 1989
      statute
    • The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Limited ([2020] EWHC 3068 (Comm); [2021] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 593)
      case-law
    • Petrochemical Industries Co (KSC) v Dow Chemical Co ([2012] EWHC 2739 (Comm); [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 691)
      case-law
    • Primera v Jiangsu ([2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 255)
      case-law
    • World Trade Corpn v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd ([2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 422)
      case-law
    • Weldon Plant Ltd v The Commission for the New Towns ([2000] BLR 496; [2001] 1 All ER 264)
      case-law
    • Torch Offshore LLC v Cable Shipping Inc ([2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 446)
      case-law
    • Russell on Arbitration, 24th edition, paragraph 20.30.17
      academic
    • David Caron and Lee Caplan, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, 2nd edition, paragraph 802
      academic
    • Thomas Webster, Handbook of UNCITRAL Arbitration, 4th edition, paragraphs 37-05 and 37-06
      academic
    • UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary (2020), paragraph 851-22
      academic
    • UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010
      statute
    • UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
      statute
    • Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law, Report on the Arbitration Bill
      legislative-history
    • UNCITRAL Working Group on the UNCITRAL Model Law, 329th meeting, 18 June 1985
      legislative-history
    • Pey Casado (Resubmission), award
      case-law
  5. Date not availableUnited Kingdom

    Date not availableUnited Kingdom

    Decision of the Court of Appeal on permission to appeal the jurisdiction challenge

    Court of Appeal of England and Wales

    Decision summary
    The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal after Kazakhstan's attempt to challenge the 19 October 2015 jurisdiction award out of time under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 failed at first instance.

    Participants

    Republic of Kazakhstan
    Court of Appeal of England and Wales
  6. Date not availableUnited Kingdom

    Date not availableUnited Kingdom

    Judgment of the Commercial Court in The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Limited [2020] EWHC 3068 (Comm)

    High Court of Justice, Commercial Court

    Citation
    [2020] EWHC 3068 (Comm)
    Decision summary
    The court upheld Kazakhstan's challenge under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the Full Tribunal awarded sunk-cost damages on a basis not argued by the parties, denying Kazakhstan an opportunity to address causation and loss and causing substantial injustice. It set aside the relevant damages and costs paragraphs of the 2019 award and remitted causation, quantification and costs to the Full Tribunal.

    Participants

    Republic of Kazakhstan
    World Wide Minerals Ltd
    Paul A Carroll QC
    High Court of Justice, Commercial Court
    Judge
    His Honour Judge Pelling QC

    Authorities cited

    1
    • Arbitration Act 1996
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

The Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Ltd and others (High Court of Justice CL-2024-000236) · Matter