Company 1 v Company 2 & Anor [2017] EWHC 2319 (QB) (20 September 2017)

Company 1 v Company 2 & Anor [2017] EWHC 2319 (QB) (20 September 2017)

The court held that while it had jurisdiction under s44 Arbitration Act 1996 to consider the application for interim relief due to urgency and necessity to preserve assets, it was not appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction in this case because the seat of arbitration was Switzerland, the BVI court was already seized of related matters, and the connection to England was tenuous. The application for disclosure was dismissed as it was not urgent nor necessary for preservation of evidence or assets, and such orders are for the arbitral tribunal.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2319 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Company 1; First Defendant: Company 2; Second Defendant: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Interim Relief Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996, Disclosure in Arbitration, Preservation of Assets
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Interim Relief Freezing Orders Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996 Disclosure in Arbitration Preservation of Assets

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Company 1

Claimant

Company 2

First Defendant

A

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Interim Relief Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under s44 Arbitration Act 1996 to grant interim relief in support of foreign-seated arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the application is urgent within the meaning of s44(3) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether it is appropriate for the English court to exercise its powers given the foreign seat and parallel proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while it had jurisdiction under s44 Arbitration Act 1996 to consider the application for interim relief due to urgency and necessity to preserve assets, it was not appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction in this case because the seat of arbitration was Switzerland, the BVI court was already seized of related matters, and the connection to England was tenuous. The application for disclosure was dismissed as it was not urgent nor necessary for preservation of evidence or assets, and such orders are for the arbitral tribunal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for payment of $236,725 and $360,000 into joint solicitors' account or for a freezing order refused
  • Application for disclosure of sales management agreements and bank statements refused