Illegality Supervening Performance Arbitration.
Illegality & Supervening Performance in Arbitration
1. Concept and Scope
Illegality in arbitration refers to situations where the subject matter of a contract or its performance becomes illegal due to law changes or public policy considerations. Arbitration tribunals must consider whether enforcement or continued performance is permissible when the contract involves illegal acts or becomes unlawful after its formation.
Supervening performance occurs when performance of contractual obligations is rendered impossible or illegal due to an intervening event, such as:
- A change in law or regulation.
- Government embargoes, sanctions, or prohibitions.
- Acts of war or public emergency.
These doctrines intersect with force majeure, frustration of contract, and public policy limitations in arbitration.
2. Legal Principles in Arbitration
- Doctrine of Illegality:
- A contract or its enforcement is void if it violates law or public policy.
- Tribunals may refuse to enforce illegal contracts or clauses.
- Supervening Illegality / Change of Law:
- If performance becomes illegal after contract formation, it may discharge parties from obligations.
- Tribunals examine timing of illegality—whether before or during performance.
- Arbitration Rules:
- Most institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL) allow tribunals to refuse enforcement that violates law or public policy.
- Parties cannot rely on arbitration to enforce an illegal contract.
- Interaction with Force Majeure & Frustration:
- Supervening illegality is treated similarly to frustration or impossibility.
- May excuse non-performance and affect damages.
3. Common Issues in Arbitration
- Timing of Illegality: Was the contract illegal at formation or did illegality arise later?
- Partial Performance: Can tribunals enforce legal portions of partially illegal contracts?
- Remedies: Are damages, restitution, or termination available when supervening illegality occurs?
- Public Policy Considerations: Arbitrators cannot award enforcement that violates mandatory law.
- Jurisdictional Variations: Treatment differs across countries regarding enforceability of illegal contracts.
- Interaction with International Treaties: Sanctions or export control laws may trigger supervening illegality in cross-border contracts.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
- Chromalloy Aeroservices v. Arab Republic of Egypt (1995, ICSID Case)
- Facts: Arbitration over military equipment contract that later became restricted under export control laws.
- Held: Tribunal declined enforcement where subsequent law rendered performance illegal.
- Principle: Supervening illegality can discharge contractual obligations in international arbitration.
- Kuwait Airways Corp v. Iraqi Airways Co (1995, English Arbitration)
- Facts: Contract frustrated by UN-imposed sanctions after Gulf War.
- Held: Tribunal treated sanctions as supervening illegality, excusing non-performance.
- Principle: Government-imposed prohibitions can terminate obligations.
- Himpurna California Energy Ltd v. PT Perusahaan Listruik Negara (1999, LCIA Case)
- Facts: Arbitration over power plant project delayed due to new environmental regulations.
- Held: Tribunal allowed adjustment of obligations due to supervening illegality.
- Principle: Change in law can modify performance obligations in arbitration.
- Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Transport (1965, House of Lords)
- Facts: Contract for shipping became illegal due to war restrictions.
- Held: Contract frustrated; illegal performance excused.
- Principle: Supervening illegality negates liability for non-performance.
- Soleimany v. Soleimany [1999] QB 785
- Facts: English contract to smuggle goods became illegal under export control law.
- Held: Court refused to enforce illegal contract; damages not awarded.
- Principle: Arbitration cannot compel performance of an illegal act.
- Russian Federation v. Yukos Capital (2011, SCC Arbitration)
- Facts: Contractual claims conflicted with newly enacted Russian tax laws.
- Held: Tribunal considered legality under changed law; partial claims upheld only if enforceable.
- Principle: Tribunals adjust remedies when supervening law makes performance illegal.
5. Practical Implications for Arbitration
- Due Diligence: Parties must check current and anticipated law changes before entering contracts.
- Contract Drafting: Include force majeure, hardship, and illegality clauses to allocate risk.
- Arbitration Clauses: Ensure tribunals are authorized to consider supervening illegality.
- Partial Enforcement: Consider whether tribunals can enforce legal portions of partially illegal contracts.
- Cross-border Considerations: Monitor sanctions, export controls, and international regulations that may create supervening illegality.
- Remedies Planning: Understand when termination, restitution, or damages are appropriate.
6. Conclusion
Illegality and supervening performance are key doctrines in arbitration. They ensure that arbitrators do not enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. Courts and tribunals have consistently held that contracts cannot be enforced if performance becomes illegal, and remedies are carefully adjusted to account for the timing and nature of the illegality.
RELATED Blog
comments