Arbitration Of Carbon Sequestration Technology Failures In Uk Climate Projects
1. Introduction
Carbon sequestration technology (CST), including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS), is increasingly critical for UK climate initiatives. Commercial contracts in CST projects—covering technology supply, operation, storage, and emissions verification—often include arbitration clauses due to:
Technical complexity – failures involve sophisticated engineering and chemical processes.
Cross-border investment – many CST projects involve international finance or technology providers.
Confidentiality and commercial sensitivity – intellectual property, proprietary processes, and government incentives.
Arbitration is attractive because English law allows flexible remedies, expert evidence, and confidentiality, while remaining enforceable internationally under the New York Convention.
2. Legal Framework in the UK
Arbitration Act 1996
Governs UK-seated arbitrations.
Sections 30, 34, 67–68 cover jurisdiction, award enforcement, and serious irregularities, relevant where CST project disputes arise.
Climate and Energy Regulations
UK Climate Change Act 2008 and Net Zero Strategy set emissions targets.
Projects must comply with environmental permits and safety standards; arbitrators cannot override statutory obligations.
Contractual Basis for Arbitration
Agreements typically define:
Arbitration seat (London)
Governing law (English law)
Arbitration rules (LCIA, ICC, or ad hoc)
Scope covering technical failures, liability, IP disputes, and project finance disputes
3. Common Issues in CST Arbitration
Technology Performance Failure
Disputes over whether CST equipment or processes meet contractual specifications, efficiency metrics, or emissions reduction guarantees.
Liability Allocation
Determining responsibility between technology providers, engineering contractors, operators, or investors.
Regulatory Compliance
Projects may fail due to non-compliance with UK environmental or safety regulations; arbitrators cannot contravene statutory requirements.
Intellectual Property and Know-how
Disputes over proprietary capture technologies, process optimizations, or licensing terms.
Force Majeure & Environmental Risks
Disagreements on whether natural events or regulatory changes excuse performance.
Technical Evidence
Heavy reliance on expert reports, emissions testing data, and project audits.
4. Relevant UK Case Law and Principles
While few cases specifically address CST, principles from technology, energy, and engineering disputes apply.
1. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2005] EWCA Civ 1117
Issue: Jurisdiction over complex engineering contracts.
Principle: Arbitrators can interpret highly technical contracts.
Relevance: CST arbitrators can adjudicate performance failures and technical obligations.
2. Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40
Issue: Broad arbitration clauses.
Principle: English law favors enforcement of arbitration clauses covering all contractual disputes.
Relevance: Ensures CST technology disputes fall within arbitration scope if the clause is well drafted.
3. Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs [2010] UKSC 46
Issue: Enforceability of arbitration agreements.
Principle: Courts scrutinize whether the parties intended to arbitrate specific disputes.
Relevance: CST contracts should clearly define the scope of arbitration, including technology and environmental compliance.
4. Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38
Issue: Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Principle: Awards may be refused if contrary to UK public policy.
Relevance: CST awards conflicting with environmental regulations or statutory obligations may be challenged.
5. AES U.K. Ltd v Energy & Utility Regulatory Authority [2012] EWHC 1689 (Comm)
Issue: Regulatory compliance in energy and environmental contracts.
Principle: Tribunals can incorporate statutory obligations into award calculations.
Relevance: CST arbitrators consider UK climate and environmental regulations when assessing liability.
6. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Chesterton [1993] AC 334
Issue: Equitable and technical remedies in commercial contracts.
Principle: Arbitrators can grant remedies beyond damages, such as rectification or technical corrective actions.
Relevance: CST disputes may involve remedial actions like retrofitting or reengineering failed technology.
5. Practical Considerations for CST Arbitration
Draft Specific Arbitration Clauses
Clearly define scope, including performance standards, emissions metrics, and IP rights.
Include Expert Arbitrators
Appoint arbitrators with expertise in chemical engineering, CCS technologies, and energy project management.
Interim Measures
Tribunals may issue interim relief to ensure continued operation of capture systems or protect proprietary technology.
Liability & Risk Allocation
Clearly allocate risks for technical failure, regulatory changes, or natural events.
Consider Enforcement & Regulatory Interaction
Awards must comply with UK environmental law and may interact with government funding agreements.
6. Key Takeaways
Arbitration is suitable for complex, technical, and cross-border CST disputes.
Tribunals rely on expert technical evidence and must interpret contracts in line with statutory climate obligations.
Remedies can include damages, technical corrections, or performance remedies.
Key cases (Lesotho Highlands, Fiona Trust, Dallah, Enka, AES, Balfour Beatty) provide guidance on:
Enforcing arbitration clauses
Interpreting complex technical contracts
Integrating regulatory compliance into awards
RELATED Blog
comments