Investcom Global Ltd v PLC Investments Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2505 (Comm) (03 October 2024)

Investcom Global Ltd v PLC Investments Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2505 (Comm) (03 October 2024)

The English court has no jurisdiction to maintain relief in respect of the Second Liberian Proceedings because the ICC Court has fixed Toronto as the seat of the arbitration, and only the courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction. Relief in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings should be maintained...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2505 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Investcom Global Limited; First Defendant: PLC Investments Limited; Second Defendant: Benoni Urey; Third Defendant: Emanuel Shaw II
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Claim / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Interim Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions
Outcome
Partial discharge of interim relief; anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions discharged as to Second Liberian Proceedings, maintained as to Third Liberian Proceedings.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunction, Anti Enforcement Injunction, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Supervisory Jurisdiction of Seat of Arbitration, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreement, Party Consent in Arbitration, Breach of Arbitration Agreement
Arbitration Injunctions Conflict of Laws Commercial Law Anti Suit Injunction Anti Enforcement Injunction Jurisdiction of English Courts Supervisory Jurisdiction of Seat of Arbitration +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investcom Global Limited

Claimant

PLC Investments Limited

First Defendant

Benoni Urey

Second Defendant

Emanuel Shaw II

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Claim / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Interim Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to maintain anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief in respect of Liberian proceedings following the ICC Court's designation of Toronto as the seat of arbitration
  2. 2 Whether relief in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings should be maintained after discontinuance
  3. 3 Whether D1-D3 are bound by arbitration agreements and the effect of the Brodies letter

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has no jurisdiction to maintain relief in respect of the Second Liberian Proceedings because the ICC Court has fixed Toronto as the seat of the arbitration, and only the courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction. Relief in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings should be maintained because the discontinuance was 'without prejudice' and with reservation of rights, and there is a real risk of refiling or similar vexatious proceedings in breach of the arbitration agreement.

Court Disposition

Partial discharge of interim relief; anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions discharged as to Second Liberian Proceedings, maintained as to Third Liberian Proceedings.

Orders

  • Discharge of the Foxton Order in respect of the Second Liberian Proceedings (anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions)
  • Continuation of the Foxton Order in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings (anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions) pending trial