Concurrent jurisdiction issue
:check: Leviathan Shipping Co Ltd v Sky Sailing Overseas Co Ltd  HKCFI 549 (High Ct, HK)
Facts: The parties agreed to arbitration in HK. Leviathan sued Sky Sailing in HK courts and applied for a freezing order in those court proceedings. Sky Sailing applied for a stay on the basis of Art 8 ML and argued that any interim relief should be granted by the court in any event.
Sky sailing said even if the ct doesn't grant stay, arbi tribunal should be tasked w granting interim relief. No reason for natct to step in.
Held: the dispute had to be referred to arbitration and, given that the tribunal had the power to grant all interim relief sought, the ct should decline to grant interim relief [ct said arbitrib should be the one to consider if IR should be sought]
“The legislature has provided for the intervention of the courts, but, in my view, this jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, and only where there are special reasons to utilise it. A special reason would be where the arbitral tribunal does not have the power to grant all the relief sought in a single application. Rather than apply to the tribunal for some of the relief and to the court for the other relief, it would obviously be more appropriate for the application to be made in its entirety to the court. But there is, in this case, no valid reason why the main dispute should be referred to arbitration, but the dispute regarding interim relief should be decided by the courts.”