By a partial award in 2015 in an arbitration between the applicant, State A, and the respondent, the arbitrators ruled that they had jurisdiction under a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), so that the arbitration had been validly commenced. In the hearing, State D was allowed to give submissions, and it gave evidence that it had "undertaken a thorough review of its records, including any communications with State A in that respect". In the post-hearing submissions the applicant submitted that it had no way of knowing whether State D had supplied all the documents in its possession. There was no challenge to the award on jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 within the 28 days permitted by section 70(3) of the Act. A hearing was conducted in 2017 and 2018. In the meantime another arbitration claim under the BIT was brought against the applicant, represented by different solicitors, by Party E. One of the exhibits was a letter written by a Minister of State D. The significance of the letter became apparent three months later, and a freedom of information request was made of State D by the applicant. Four months later State D produced a redacted copy of the letter. Subsequently an unredacted copy of the letter was disclosed in the Party E arbitration.
展开▼
