The court gave its reasons for the grant of an order restraining the claimant from also pursuing arbitration proceedings at the International Court of Arbitration.
Held: Gloster J was, found on the evidence then before her a strong arguable case that Gulf was not a party to the alleged contract with Excaliburnd described the grounds put forward by Excalibur to assert the contrary as not, at least at that stage, legally or evidentially convincing.
Judges:
Gloster DBE J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 1624 (Comm)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others ComC 10-Sep-2013
Excalibur claimed to be entitled to an interest in a number of oil fields in Kurdistan, which are potentially extremely profitable, and of which the Shaikan field is the most important. The claim was for specific performance of a ‘Collaboration . .
Cited – Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others CA 18-Nov-2016
Excalibur had entered into a conditional fee agreement with its solicitors to suport its intended claim against the respondents. Funders had advanced some andpound;13m to take the mater forward. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Arbitration
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441246
