Belair LLC v Basel LLC

Belair LLC v Basel LLC

The case is one of urgency within s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitral tribunal is not yet constituted and there is a real risk that the respondent may deal with the only asset (the property) before the tribunal can consider interim relief. The claimant has a good arguable case for repayment of sums paid, and the risk of dissipation is sufficient to justify a freezing order. The balance of convenience favours interim relief, with a time-limited order and a cross-undertaking in damages fortified by US$300,000.

Parties
Claimant: Belair LLC; Respondent: Basel LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Application for Interim Freezing Injunction Pending Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal
Outcome
Application for interim freezing injunction granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Interim Relief, Asset Preservation, Urgency in Arbitration, Cross Border Enforcement
Arbitration Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Interim Relief Asset Preservation Urgency in Arbitration Cross Border Enforcement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belair LLC

Claimant

Basel LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Application for Interim Freezing Injunction Pending Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case is one of urgency under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 justifying court intervention
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for relief
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The case is one of urgency within s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitral tribunal is not yet constituted and there is a real risk that the respondent may deal with the only asset (the property) before the tribunal can consider interim relief. The claimant has a good arguable case for repayment of sums paid, and the risk of dissipation is sufficient to justify a freezing order. The balance of convenience favours interim relief, with a time-limited order and a cross-undertaking in damages fortified by US$300,000.

Court Disposition

Application for interim freezing injunction granted

Orders

  • Freezing order made under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 to preserve the property pending constitution of the arbitral tribunal and its determination of interim relief
  • Order to be time-limited with a long-stop date to be agreed by the parties