SQD v QYP

SQD v QYP

The English court should not grant an interim anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction in support of a Paris-seated arbitration, even where the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, because to do so would be inconsistent with the approach of the courts of the seat (France), which fundamentally object to ASIs. Granting such relief would create a conflict with the curial law and the parties’ choice of seat. England is not the proper forum for this application.

Parties
Claimant: SQD; Defendant: QYP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application / Interim Application for Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Proper Forum, Support of Foreign Arbitration, Interim Relief
Arbitration Civil Procedure Private International Law Anti Suit Injunctions Anti Enforcement Injunctions Jurisdiction Proper Forum Support of Foreign Arbitration +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SQD

Claimant

QYP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application / Interim Application for Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should grant an interim anti-suit injunction (ASI) and anti-enforcement injunction (AEI) in support of a Paris-seated ICC arbitration governed by English law
  2. 2 Whether the English court is the proper forum for such relief where the seat is outside the jurisdiction and French law does not permit ASIs
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s. 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The English court should not grant an interim anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction in support of a Paris-seated arbitration, even where the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, because to do so would be inconsistent with the approach of the courts of the seat (France), which fundamentally object to ASIs. Granting such relief would create a conflict with the curial law and the parties’ choice of seat. England is not the proper forum for this application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed