Shashoua & Ors v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) (07 May 2009)

Shashoua & Ors v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) (07 May 2009)

London is the seat of arbitration and English law is the curial law; the defendant is contractually bound to challenge the Costs Award only in English courts; anti-suit injunction is appropriate to restrain proceedings outside England and Wales that challenge or impede enforcement of the award or English court orders; submission to Indian jurisdiction and non-disclosure issues require further oral evidence but do not bar the injunction at this stage.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 957 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Roger Shashoua; Claimant: Rodemadan Holdings Limited; Claimant: Stancroft Trust Limited; Defendant: Mukesh Sharma
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Post Interim Injunction, Inter Partes Hearing
Outcome
Interim anti-suit injunction continued; final determination deferred pending oral evidence on submission and non-disclosure.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Seat and Curial Law, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Jurisdictional Challenges, Submission to Foreign Court Jurisdiction
Arbitration Private International Law Commercial Law Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Seat and Curial Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Jurisdictional Challenges Submission to Foreign Court Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Shashoua

Claimant

Rodemadan Holdings Limited

Claimant

Stancroft Trust Limited

Claimant

Mukesh Sharma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Post Interim Injunction, Inter Partes Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether London is the seat of arbitration and English law the curial law
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be restrained from challenging the Costs Award outside England and Wales
  3. 3 Whether the claimants submitted to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court

Ratio Decidendi

London is the seat of arbitration and English law is the curial law; the defendant is contractually bound to challenge the Costs Award only in English courts; anti-suit injunction is appropriate to restrain proceedings outside England and Wales that challenge or impede enforcement of the award or English court orders; submission to Indian jurisdiction and non-disclosure issues require further oral evidence but do not bar the injunction at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim anti-suit injunction continued; final determination deferred pending oral evidence on submission and non-disclosure.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from bringing or participating in proceedings outside England and Wales that challenge, impugn, or delay enforcement of the Costs Award or English court orders, except for recognition/enforcement challenges permitted by Article V of the New York Convention.
  • Liberty to apply for permission to make applications in foreign courts regarding recognition/enforcement under Article V.