Minister of Finance (Incorporated) v 1Malaysia Development Berhad & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 2080 (26 November 2019)

Minister of Finance (Incorporated) v 1Malaysia Development Berhad & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 2080 (26 November 2019)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge exercised his case management power to stay the court applications under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the wrong legal basis, failing to give proper effect to the mandatory and public interest nature of those provisions. There were no compelling reasons to grant a stay, and the claimants' statutory right to challenge the consent award should not be fettered by the second arbitrations. The judge also erred in refusing an injunction to restrain the second arbitrations, as the continuation of those arbitrations infringed the claimants' rights and was vexatious and oppressive. The appeal was allowed, the stay was lifted,...

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 2080
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Minister of Finance (Incorporated); Claimant/appellant: 1Malaysia Development Berhad; Defendant/respondent: International Petroleum Investment Company; Defendant/respondent: Aabar Investments PJS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 67 and 68, Case Management Stay, Injunction to Restrain Arbitration, Party Autonomy, Supervisory Jurisdiction of English Courts, Public Policy in Arbitration, Issue Estoppel, Serious Irregularity, Substantive Jurisdiction
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 67 and 68 Case Management Stay Injunction to Restrain Arbitration Party Autonomy Supervisory Jurisdiction of English Courts +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Finance (Incorporated)

Claimant/appellant

1Malaysia Development Berhad

Claimant/appellant

International Petroleum Investment Company

Defendant/respondent

Aabar Investments PJS

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge exercised his case management power to stay court applications under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the correct legal basis
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should exercise a case management power to stay the court applications
  3. 3 Whether the judge exercised his discretion to refuse an injunction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the correct legal basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge exercised his case management power to stay the court applications under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the wrong legal basis, failing to give proper effect to the mandatory and public interest nature of those provisions. There were no compelling reasons to grant a stay, and the claimants' statutory right to challenge the consent award should not be fettered by the second arbitrations. The judge also erred in refusing an injunction to restrain the second arbitrations, as the continuation of those arbitrations infringed the claimants' rights and was vexatious and oppressive. The appeal was allowed, the stay was lifted,...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Stay on court applications under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 removed
  • Injunction granted restraining the pursuit of the second arbitrations until final determination of the court applications