Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm) (20 March 2007)

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm) (20 March 2007)

The court refused to grant an injunction because the continuation of the LCIA arbitration was not vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable; no legal or equitable right of Elektrim was infringed; both arbitrations concerned different subject matters under different contracts; and the Arbitration Act 1996 requires party autonomy and minimal court intervention. The LCIA tribunal had the power to stay proceedings and had refused to do so. Granting an injunction would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the parties' agreement.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 571 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Elektrim S.A.; Defendant: Vivendi Universal S.A.; Defendant: Vivendi Telecommunication International S.A.; Defendant: Elektrim Telekomunikacja Sp. z.o.o.; Defendant: Carcom Warszawa Sp. z.o.o.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Final Injunction / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Final Injunction
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Arbitration Injunctions, Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996, Section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981, Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings, Party Autonomy in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Anti Arbitration Injunctions Jurisdiction of English Courts Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981 Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings Party Autonomy in Arbitration

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elektrim S.A.

Claimant

Vivendi Universal S.A.

Defendant

Vivendi Telecommunication International S.A.

Defendant

Elektrim Telekomunikacja Sp. z.o.o.

Defendant

Carcom Warszawa Sp. z.o.o.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Final Injunction / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should grant a final injunction restraining the defendants from pursuing LCIA arbitration pending the outcome of ICC arbitration
  2. 2 Whether continuation of LCIA arbitration is vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the court's jurisdiction under section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981 can be exercised consistently with the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant an injunction because the continuation of the LCIA arbitration was not vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable; no legal or equitable right of Elektrim was infringed; both arbitrations concerned different subject matters under different contracts; and the Arbitration Act 1996 requires party autonomy and minimal court intervention. The LCIA tribunal had the power to stay proceedings and had refused to do so. Granting an injunction would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for final injunction refused
  • Action dismissed