The respondent, Guinness was the majority shareholder in a UK company, CPL. The appellants, Kanoria commenced arbitration proceedings in India against Guinness and CPL, claiming that CPL had failed to pay a sum of money to Kanoria under a business agreement subject to Indian law.

At the time Kanoria commenced arbitration proceedings, Guinness was seriously ill and unable to attend the arbitration hearing. During the arbitration hearing, Kanoria made allegations of fraud on the part of Guinness as justification for holding Guinness rather than his company personally liable. However, no notice was given to Guinness about the allegation of fraud.

In the arbitration award, the arbitrator directed Guinness to pay the sum of money owed by CPL to Kanoria. Kanoria sought to enforce the arbitration award in the UK under the Arbitration Act 1996. Guinness relied on clause 103(2)(c) of the 1996 Act, which provides that enforcement may be refused if the party to an arbitration "was not given proper notice of… the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case."

Had Guinness been properly informed of the case against him?