“[22] In short, the purpose of interim measures is to complement and facilitate the arbitration, not to forestall or substitute for it. The court’s role is ancillary, to be exercised only to the extent that it is not possible or practicable for the arbitrator to deal with that issue.”

• ✅Sensation Yachts Ltd v Derby Maritime Ltd (unrep, 2005) (High Ct, New Zealand), per Wild J .... An issue that almost all ncts share

• v broad
  -“It is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim measure of protection and for a court to grant such measure.”
• Some cts in the us: article 2 NYC means natct can never grant interim measure .. [weird interpretation??] this is still an assumption in v low cts … THEY THINK NATCTS DON’T HAVE POWER TO GRANT IMPTS..
• “The rationale for article 9 is that the granting of interim measures is sometimes essential to ensure the effectiveness of the arbitral tribunal’s power to dispose of the merits of the case fully and in an effective manner. Also, the arbitral tribunal is sometimes unable to respond effectively to a party’s need for interim measures of protection.” UNCITRAL, 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law, p.53, para 5
  

Art 9 ML does not create independent jurisdiction
“[33] Article 9 can have no bearing on the meaning and effect of a domestic law providing for interim measures....
[95] Art 9 was not intended to confer jurisdiction ( but to declare the compatibility between resolving a dispute through arbitration and at the same time seeking assistance from the court for interim protection orders.”

• ✅ Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2006] SGCA 42 (CA, Sing), per Chan Sek Keong CJ: no it does not create new jurisdiction. A9 does not confer an additional power on the natcts that they would have ahd without it. Clarifies nothing in the nature of arbitration should be taken as limiting power of NCts (impt ) power of natcts depends on national laws. A9 has no effect on this.
  

• useful, inserted in 2016
• “A court shall have the same power of issuing an interim measure in relation to arbitration proceedings, irrespective of whether their place is in the territory of this State, as it has in relation to proceedings in courts. [1)ct has same power to make interim orders in arbi as it does in ct based liti. 2) has that power regardless of whether or not it is the ct of the seat.] The court shall exercise such power in accordance with its own procedures in consideration of the specific features of international arbitration.” [specific features = v rare that it was appropriate for foreign ct to interfere in arbitration. Usually leave it to the ct that has supervisory jurisdiction to make the decision] - gives rise to the fact there is concurrent jurisidiction between natcts and tribunals to grant IMP. Both have the powers to do so. But which is more approrpaite? (see case bwloW)

Concurrent jurisdiction issue

✅ 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.”

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.

⭐ ✅ 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

1. AT cannot make orders against third parties;

   
   

2. They cannot compel parties to comply with evidentiary orders made against them.

   
   
   

No jurisdiction over 3P. Has no coercive powers… even if it orders a 3P … the only real power arbi … tribunal can draw adverse inferences