E-Star Shipping and Trading Company Ltd v Delta Corp Shipping Ltd [2022] EWHC 3165 (Comm) (07 November 2022)

E-Star Shipping and Trading Company Ltd v Delta Corp Shipping Ltd [2022] EWHC 3165 (Comm) (07 November 2022)

The application failed because E-Star did not establish, with a high degree of probability, the existence of a binding arbitration agreement, as the settlement agreement required signature by all parties and this was not proven. Further, the Benin proceedings had concluded, making anti-suit or anti-enforcement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3165 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: E-STAR SHIPPING AND TRADING COMPANY LTD; Defendant: DELTA CORP SHIPPING LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Judgment on Application for Anti Suit Injunction and Section 44 Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Comity, Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Comity Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E-STAR SHIPPING AND TRADING COMPANY LTD

Claimant

DELTA CORP SHIPPING LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Judgment on Application for Anti Suit Injunction and Section 44 Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction against the Defendant in respect of Benin proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant relief under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because E-Star did not establish, with a high degree of probability, the existence of a binding arbitration agreement, as the settlement agreement required signature by all parties and this was not proven. Further, the Benin proceedings had concluded, making anti-suit or anti-enforcement relief inappropriate, and comity and delay also precluded relief. Section 44 relief was refused for lack of a valid arbitration agreement and because the parties who might benefit had not sought relief or invoked arbitration.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed