A v OOO 'Insurance Company Chubb' & Ors [2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm) (15 October 2019)

A v OOO 'Insurance Company Chubb' & Ors [2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm) (15 October 2019)

The application for urgent interim injunctive relief was refused because the case was not ready for a fair hearing due to procedural deficiencies, late service of evidence, lack of full and frank disclosure, and insufficient time for proper consideration. The urgency was largely of the applicant's own making, and there was no compelling reason to proceed before the Russian court's hearing on the stay application.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: A; First Defendant: OOO 'Insurance Company Chubb'; Second Defendant: Chubb Russia Investments Limited; Third Defendant: Chubb European Group Se; Fourth Defendant: Chubb Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Interim Application for Urgent Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application for urgent interim injunctive relief refused; no substantive order made today.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction, Interim Relief, Procedural Fairness
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Interim Relief Procedural Fairness

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

OOO 'Insurance Company Chubb'

First Defendant

Chubb Russia Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Chubb European Group Se

Third Defendant

Chubb Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Interim Application for Urgent Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether urgent interim anti-suit relief should be granted to restrain Russian proceedings allegedly in breach of a London-seated arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether the application should proceed ex parte or inter partes
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or lack of preparedness justifying adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for urgent interim injunctive relief was refused because the case was not ready for a fair hearing due to procedural deficiencies, late service of evidence, lack of full and frank disclosure, and insufficient time for proper consideration. The urgency was largely of the applicant's own making, and there was no compelling reason to proceed before the Russian court's hearing on the stay application.

Court Disposition

Application for urgent interim injunctive relief refused; no substantive order made today.