The parties contracte for works relating to a power plant. The applicable law was Khazak, but the agreement provided that any dispute between the parties was to be settled by arbitration in London. The claimant now sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent the respondent, effectively the Khazak government from pursuing a dispute in the Khazak courts. The respondent replied that since no arbitration was planned, there was no jurisdiction to grant such an order.
Held: The court had such a jurisdiction, and the application to dismiss the request was rejected, though the injunction itself was restricted.
Judges:
Burton J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 772 (Comm), [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 493
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – AES UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Llp v UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Jsc CA 27-May-2011
The parties disputed the right to prevent a foreign court action where the agreement required arbitration in London . .
At first instance – UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Jsc v AES UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Llp SC 12-Jun-2013
Arrangements between the parties owners and operators of a power plant in Kazakhstan required disputes to be arbitrated in London under ICC Rules. That clause was governed by English law, and the remainder by Kazakh law. A ruling by the Supreme . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, International
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408674
