Fiona Trust And Holding Corporation v Primalov

Fiona Trust And Holding Corporation v Primalov

The respondents did not demonstrate a strong enough case of potential prejudice to justify injunctive relief. The undertakings offered by the appellants sufficiently protected the respondents' interests, and the court should be cautious about intervening in arbitration matters.

Parties
Appellant: Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation; Respondent: Primalov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Interim Injunction Pending Appeal to House of Lords
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Arbitration Proceedings, Section 72 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Arbitration Proceedings Section 72 Arbitration Act 1996

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation

Appellant

Primalov

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Interim Injunction Pending Appeal to House of Lords

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an injunction restraining arbitration pending appeal to the House of Lords
  2. 2 Whether respondents would suffer prejudice if arbitration proceeds
  3. 3 Appropriateness of court intervention in arbitral matters

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not demonstrate a strong enough case of potential prejudice to justify injunctive relief. The undertakings offered by the appellants sufficiently protected the respondents' interests, and the court should be cautious about intervening in arbitration matters.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Respondents may participate in arbitration without prejudice to court proceedings.
  • Respondents may appoint their own arbitrator.