Daelim Corporation v Bonita Company Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 697 (Comm) (25 March 2020)

Daelim Corporation v Bonita Company Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 697 (Comm) (25 March 2020)

The injunction restraining Bonita from pursuing EMIC under the TSA (paragraph 5.3 of the June Order) was not necessary for the purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996, nor was it justified as a quid pro quo for requiring EMIC to pay the disputed sum into court or escrow. The relief improperly interfered with the parties' agreed arbitral process and was not within the court's statutory powers.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 697 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Daelim Corporation; First Defendant: Bonita Company Limited; Second Defendant: Eastern Media International Corporation; Third Defendant: Far Eastern Silo & Shipping (Panama) S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) / Application to Discharge Injunction (paragraph 5.3 of June Order)
Outcome
Application to discharge paragraph 5.3 of the June Order granted.
Legal Topics
Anti Arbitration Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3), Interpleader, Assignment of Contractual Rights
Arbitration Commercial Law Injunctions Anti Arbitration Injunctions Asset Preservation Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) Interpleader Assignment of Contractual Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daelim Corporation

Claimant

Bonita Company Limited

First Defendant

Eastern Media International Corporation

Second Defendant

Far Eastern Silo & Shipping (Panama) S.A.

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) / Application to Discharge Injunction (paragraph 5.3 of June Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining Bonita from pursuing EMIC under the TSA (paragraph 5.3 of the June Order) was necessary for the purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether such relief was appropriate as a quid pro quo for requiring EMIC to pay the disputed sum into court or escrow
  3. 3 Whether the application was properly presented ex parte

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction restraining Bonita from pursuing EMIC under the TSA (paragraph 5.3 of the June Order) was not necessary for the purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996, nor was it justified as a quid pro quo for requiring EMIC to pay the disputed sum into court or escrow. The relief improperly interfered with the parties' agreed arbitral process and was not within the court's statutory powers.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge paragraph 5.3 of the June Order granted.

Orders

  • Paragraph 5.3 of the June Order is discharged.