ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor [2008] EWHC 1689 (Comm) (11 July 2008)

ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor [2008] EWHC 1689 (Comm) (11 July 2008)

The English court has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief in support of the ICSID arbitration or the New York attachment proceedings under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as the Order in Council does not extend to arbitration proceedings. Even if jurisdiction existed, it would not be expedient to grant relief due to the exclusive regime for provisional measures under the ICSID Convention and Rules. Further, State Immunity Act 1978 precludes such relief against Bolivia due to a contrary provision in the arbitration agreement. The freezing orders must be discharged.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1689 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: E. T. I. Euro Telecom International NV; First Defendant: Republic of Bolivia; Second Defendant: Empresa Nationale de Telecomunicaciones Entel SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Interim Injunction (freezing Order) in Support of Foreign Arbitration and Court Proceedings / Hearing on Application to Discharge Interim Injunction/freezing Order
Outcome
Applications to discharge the freezing orders granted; orders discharged against both defendants; costs awarded to defendants on the standard basis; stay of order until 4pm on the following Tuesday to allow for application to the Court of Appeal; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief in Support of Arbitration, Jurisdiction Under S.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, ICSID Arbitration Regime, State Immunity Act 1978, Interpretation of Orders in Council, Costs (standard Vs Indemnity)
Arbitration International Law State Immunity Civil Procedure Interim Relief in Support of Arbitration Jurisdiction Under S.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ICSID Arbitration Regime State Immunity Act 1978 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. T. I. Euro Telecom International NV

Claimant

Republic of Bolivia

First Defendant

Empresa Nationale de Telecomunicaciones Entel SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Interim Injunction (freezing Order) in Support of Foreign Arbitration and Court Proceedings / Hearing on Application to Discharge Interim Injunction/freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief (freezing order) in support of ICSID arbitration or New York attachment proceedings under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the Order in Council extends to arbitration proceedings, including ICSID arbitrations
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient to grant interim relief in light of the ICSID Convention and Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief in support of the ICSID arbitration or the New York attachment proceedings under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as the Order in Council does not extend to arbitration proceedings. Even if jurisdiction existed, it would not be expedient to grant relief due to the exclusive regime for provisional measures under the ICSID Convention and Rules. Further, State Immunity Act 1978 precludes such relief against Bolivia due to a contrary provision in the arbitration agreement. The freezing orders must be discharged.

Court Disposition

Applications to discharge the freezing orders granted; orders discharged against both defendants; costs awarded to defendants on the standard basis; stay of order until 4pm on the following Tuesday to allow for application to the Court of Appeal; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Freezing orders of 9 May and 16 May 2008 discharged against both defendants
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis