Summary

1. This appeal concerns the assignability by the successful party of rights arising from an award made under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States 1965 ("the ICSID Convention").

2. As developed on the appeal, the issues which arise for determination are as follows:

i) whether the successful party in the arbitration ("the original award creditor") can assign the benefit of the award ("Ground 1A");

ii) whether Article 15 of the Energy Charter Treaty of 1994 ("the ECT") precludes an assignment of an award in respect of substantive rights arising under that treaty ("Ground 1B");

iii) whether Article 54(2) of the ICSID Convention allows anyone other than the original award creditor to seek recognition or enforcement of an ICSID award ("Ground 1C");

iv) whether it is sufficient for Article 54(2) that the original award creditor initiates the recognition and enforcement process before the national court ("Ground 1D"); and

v) whether the original award creditor can assign the right to enforce such an award under s.2 of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 ("the 1966 Act") ("Ground 2")?

3. In a judgment produced with his customary expedition and reported at [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm) ("the Judgment"), His Honour Judge Pelling KC ("the Judge") held that there was no relevant right of assignment in this case. For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that the Judge was right on both grounds, and that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons the Judge gave. However, the arguments advanced on appeal involved a number of refinements to those advanced before the Judge, and as a result the reasons for my conclusions differ in some respects from those of the Judge.

...