Arbitration proceedings had been commenced betweeen the parties, and an order was sought under s244.
Held: Without such an order the insurers could suffer substantial losses before the arbitrator could itself make the necessary orders. The defendant argued that the power of the court was restricted to the class of case identified in section 44(3), namely to make ‘such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets’. That submission was rejected. Section 44(3) was permissive and not restrictive, and the court has jurisdiction under s44 to grant an interim mandatory injunction. The words ‘the court may’ in 44(3) contrasted with ‘the court shall act only’ in subsections (4) and (5). The draftsman was thought to have good reason for using of such different language and if the draftsman had intended that all three sub-sections should impose similar restrictions, he would have used the same language.
Cooke J
[2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 438, [2004] EWHC 479 (Comm)
Arbitration Act 1996 44
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd CA 24-May-2005
The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.226185
