Daelim Corporation v Bonita Company Ltd & Ors

Daelim Corporation v Bonita Company Ltd & Ors

Paragraph 5.3 of the June Order was not necessary for the statutory purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996. It was not a justified quid pro quo for the primary relief, nor was it appropriate to restrain Bonita from pursuing arbitration under the TSA. The injunction amounted to an unjustified anti-arbitration injunction and should be discharged.

Parties
Claimant: Daelim Corporation; First Defendant: Bonita Company Limited; Second Defendant: Eastern Media International Corporation; Third Defendant: Far Eastern Silo & Shipping (Panama) S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (injunction) / Ruling on Application to Discharge Injunction
Outcome
Application to discharge injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3), Anti Arbitration Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Jurisdiction of English Courts in Support of Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) Anti Arbitration Injunctions Asset Preservation Jurisdiction of English Courts in Support of Arbitration

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daelim Corporation

Claimant

Bonita Company Limited

First Defendant

Eastern Media International Corporation

Second Defendant

Far Eastern Silo & Shipping (Panama) S.A.

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (injunction) / Ruling on Application to Discharge Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 5.3 of the June Order (injunction restraining Bonita from pursuing EMIC under the TSA) was necessary for the purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the injunction was a necessary quid pro quo for the primary relief granted against EMIC
  3. 3 Whether the injunction amounted to an unjustified anti-arbitration injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 5.3 of the June Order was not necessary for the statutory purpose of preserving assets under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996. It was not a justified quid pro quo for the primary relief, nor was it appropriate to restrain Bonita from pursuing arbitration under the TSA. The injunction amounted to an unjustified anti-arbitration injunction and should be discharged.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge injunction granted

Orders

  • Paragraph 5.3 of the June Order is discharged