Claim No: CL-2024-000563 - [2025] EWHC 1586 (Comm)

It provides important context to the issues which arise as to who commenced the arbitration, and to how the RFA was to be understood by a reasonable reader in the position of Energyen. I note that in decisions such as Internaut Shipping GmbH v Fercometal SARL [2003] EWCA Civ 812, SEB Trygg Holding AB v Manches [2005] EWHC 35 (Comm), [2005] EWCA Civ 1237 and Eurosteel Ltd v Stinnes AG[2000] CLC 470, in which the court has faced similar issues to those which arise in this case, the court has itself sought to identify the parties to the arbitration agreement for the purposes of resolving disputes as to whether an arbitration had been validly commenced and/or continued, and who the parties to the reference are.

Energyen has itself squarely raised this issue as one of its jurisdictional challenges (paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Re-Amended Claim Form, being the first jurisdictional points taken) and it is a jurisdictional issue which directly arises if I conclude that the HHI 2019 Company is the arbitral claimant.

The jurisdictional challenge based on the effect of the Spin-Off plan was the primary basis of Energyen’s challenge at all times until the service of Mr Dunning KC’s skeleton argument.