Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

(6) ncts power + non-seat nc + ct assistance (National courts’ powers to…

- - - - Concurrent jurisdiction issue
        :check: Leviathan Shipping Co Ltd v Sky Sailing Overseas Co Ltd [1998] 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.”
- - - - :star: :check: Channel Tunnel Group v Balfour Beatty (1993) AC 334 (UK, House of Lords)
        
        Facts: Balfour Beatty employed to build the channel tunnel and cooling system. Dispute arose and BB threatened to stop work. Clause 67 provided for arbitration in Brussels. CTG sought injunctive relief from English High Court restraining BB from stopping work.
        
        At first instance, allowed injunction (in favour of foregn)
        
        Held: at first instance Evans J granted the injunction and dismissed BB’s application to stay English proceedings for Belgian arbitration. Overturned on appeal. HL held that proceedings had to be stayed for arbitration, but also found that it had the power to grant injunctive relief in support of that foreign arbitration. Refused to do so on the basis that it would pre-empt arbitral tribunal’s decision.
        
        Per Lord Mustill: “... If the English Court grants an interlocutory injunction … it is not playing any part in the decision of the dispute, but simply doing its best to ensure that the resolution by the arbitrators is fruitful ... [doing its best so arbitrators can have a fair go at resdolving substantive dispute] neither the arbitration agreement nor the [New York] Convention … contemplate that by transferring to the arbitrators the substance of the dispute… the Court also divests itself of the right to use the sanctions of municipal law, which are not available to the arbitrators, in order to ensure that the arbitration is carried forward to the best advantage”
        
        Took the opportuniry to decide on foreign arbi. HL said s44 gives it the power, but it should be truly exceptional
      - :check: Econet Wireless Services Ltd v Vee Networks Ltd [2006] EWHC 1568 (Comm) (High Ct, England) (seat = Nigeria; imp refused)
        :check: Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm) (High Ct, England) (seat = New York; imp refused)
        
        also failed. Huge piece of litigation. Mobil successfully got freezing order. Liti arose bc past legislation (vene) needs to have 60% state ownership venez. Got freezing order exparte for 12bil. Whenever this happens in england, there is a return date hearing later. But in this case, the return hearing exparte was refused. Barrister under fire for having misled judge
        good example of how exceptional the power is for ncts to grant injunction
      - :check: AG of Belize v Carlisle Network Holdings (2005) Sup Ct. Belize, Action No 15
        
        foreign national ct exercising power to grant foreign arbitration
        
        Facts: Dispute arising out of agreements with Belize government concerning shares in Belize Telecom. Contained arbitration clauses providing for LCIA arbitration in London. Carlisle obtained anti-suit and other injunctive relief from High Court in London to preserve shares. Sought mirror relief from Belize courts. Defendant was attorney general of belize..
        
        Held: granting the relief, the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in support of a foreign arbitration where to do so is necessary to aid or facilitate the arbitration process agreed upon by the parties. Injunctive relief designed to hold the status quo pending final arbitrament.
        Court had impersonam jurisdiction over AG of belize.. So they wre better placed to make these orders
    - - This is the only example where english ct granted injunction in support of foreign arbitration and survived. In the mobil one, it got knocked out when the parties came back exparte.
        :star: :check: ASES Havacilik Servis ve Destek Hizmetleri AS v Delkor UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 3667(Comm) (High Ct, England)
        Facts: Arbitration seated in Zurich. Contract between Turkish and English companies for sale of industrial machinery. Performance bonds and payment guarantees issued by UK banks. Delkor sought injunctive relief from English High Court restraining ASES from making any calls on the bonds and guarantees.
        Held: Injunctions granted. English High Court had the power to grant relief in support of foreign arbitral proceedings under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996. Granted injunctions to hold the ring pending Swiss arbitration.
        High ct: did the swiss or english arbitration clause cover the dispute ? Uk high ct said the swiss one prevails. English arbit fell away. But in the meantime, uk high ct already made some injunctions to protect arbi in particular parties k relationship ie performance bonds n guarantees (Devices to enable a prty to get paid). One of the injunctions uk got was to stop ASES to get it [stopping the other party frm getting paid]
        THEN uk ct decided that it was a swiss arbitration. Uk needed the injunctions to hold.
        Arbitators made court grant relief in support of ___ under s44