Double K Oil & Products 1996 Ltd v Neste Oil OYJ [2009] EWHC 3380 (Comm), [2009] All ER (D) 214 (Dec)
In accordance with the high threshold applicable to the Arbitration Act 1996, s 68 it was not enough in an application under s 68(2)(g) to show that one party had inadvertently misled the other, however carelessly. It would normally be necessary to satisfy the court that some form of reprehensible or unconscionable conduct had contributed in a substantial way to the obtaining of the award.
A challenge to an award could not, therefore, be made on the ground of an innocent failure to give proper disclosure, or the innocent production of false evidence. Where the allegation was fraud in the production of evidence, the onus was on the applicant to make good the allegation by cogent evidence. The applicant would have to show that the new evidence relied upon to demonstrate the fraud was not available at the time of the arbitration and would have had an important influence on the result.
The latter point (important influence on the result) took effect within the statutory requirement that
