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 Kazakh Court declared the arbitration clause invalid. The contractor began arbitration proceedings in England for a declaration as to its validity. An injunction was granted prohibiting further proceedings in Kazakhstan. The owner appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. Courts in the UK have long held jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson
[2013] UKSC 35, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281, [2013] 1 WLR 1889, [2013] WLR(D) 232
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Arbitration Act 1996 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – C v D CA 5-Dec-2007
The court considered an appeal under the Bermuda Form of international Liability Insurance which provided for arbitration in London subject to the internal laws of New York. The insurers threatened to challenge under US federal arbitration law in a . .
At first instance – AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Llp v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Jsc ComC 16-Apr-2010
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 . .
Cited – Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA and another v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd and Others QBD 14-Apr-2000
An arbitration process which sought to join parties who denied being part of the contract for arbitration could not itself decide the contractual power to enforce the arbitration. Accordingly the High Court had no jurisdiction either to apply the . .
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. . .
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 . .
Cited – Arsanovia Ltd and Others v Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings ComC 20-Dec-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, International
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510794