The insurance dispute and evidence
The dispute between Shakhtyorsk Coal Sea Port and AMT Insurance concerned the constructive total loss of a tugboat. The Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry awarded insurance compensation. The parties disputed seaworthiness, weather and ice conditions, causation and repair costs, using technical documents and specialist reports. The state courts set aside the MAC award and refused an enforcement writ.
Where the courts exceeded review limits
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts reweighed the evidence and preferred another account of the accident. They had not identified the fundamental violation required for public-policy intervention. The tribunal determines the relevance, admissibility and weight of evidence; disagreement with its assessment does not itself establish a ground for setting aside.
What the Supreme Court ordered
The Supreme Court quashed the state-court orders, refused the insurer’s setting-aside application, granted the port’s application and directed the Moscow Commercial Court to issue a writ. The complete determination of 4 July 2025 separates the reasoning from each operative order.
Evidence assessment and the right to be heard
Compare the Supreme Court’s 2026 expertise determination. Examining whether a party could participate in evidential steps and respond differs from choosing again between technical accounts. Identify the particular act or refusal, its effect on the opportunity to present a case and its connection with a statutory review ground. Not every technical document in this dispute was a tribunal-appointed expert report.
Related guide
The procedure and evidence guide discusses reports, objections and the procedural record. Read it alongside the setting-aside and enforcement-refusal guide to understand the purpose of retaining the relevant documents.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.