Investcom Global Limited v PLC Investments Limited & Ors

Investcom Global Limited v PLC Investments Limited & Ors

The English court has no jurisdiction to maintain relief in respect of the Second Liberian Proceedings because, following the ICC Court's designation of Toronto as the seat of the arbitration, only the courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction. The relief in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings should continue because there is a good arguable case that D1 is bound to arbitrate under the MA arbitration agreement, the discontinuance was without prejudice and with reservation of the right to refile, and the risk of vexatious or duplicative proceedings remains.

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
10 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Related Claim / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Interim Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions
Outcome
Partial continuation and partial discharge of interim relief
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction, Supervisory Powers of Seat Court, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Arbitration Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Supervisory Powers of Seat Court Service Out of Jurisdiction

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 5 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 Related 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 continue anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions 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 despite discontinuance
  3. 3 Whether the parties are bound by arbitration agreements and the effect of the ICC Rules on seat designation

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has no jurisdiction to maintain relief in respect of the Second Liberian Proceedings because, following the ICC Court's designation of Toronto as the seat of the arbitration, only the courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction. The relief in respect of the Third Liberian Proceedings should continue because there is a good arguable case that D1 is bound to arbitrate under the MA arbitration agreement, the discontinuance was without prejudice and with reservation of the right to refile, and the risk of vexatious or duplicative proceedings remains.

Court Disposition

Partial continuation and partial discharge of interim relief

Orders

  • Relief granted by Foxton J pertaining to the Third Liberian Proceedings continues pending trial.
  • Relief pertaining to the Second Liberian Proceedings is discharged.