Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors

The court dismissed Elektrim’s application for an injunction, holding that the Arbitration Act 1996 vests procedural control in the arbitral tribunal, and that section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 does not provide a basis for court intervention in the absence of breach of legal or equitable rights or conduct that is genuinely vexatious or oppressive. The existence of parallel arbitrations does not, in itself, justify court intervention, especially where both arise from valid contractual agreements and the arbitral tribunal has repeatedly refused to stay proceedings. Delay by Elektrim in seeking relief further militates against granting an injunction.

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 Application / Final Judgment on Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Arbitration Injunctions, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Arbitration Act 1996, Section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981, Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings
Arbitration Commercial Law Anti Arbitration Injunctions Jurisdiction of English Courts Arbitration Act 1996 Section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981 Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings

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 12 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 Application / Final Judgment on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in the context of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the LCIA arbitration is vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable to Elektrim
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to grant a final injunction restraining the LCIA arbitration pending the outcome of the ICC arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed Elektrim’s application for an injunction, holding that the Arbitration Act 1996 vests procedural control in the arbitral tribunal, and that section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 does not provide a basis for court intervention in the absence of breach of legal or equitable rights or conduct that is genuinely vexatious or oppressive. The existence of parallel arbitrations does not, in itself, justify court intervention, especially where both arise from valid contractual agreements and the arbitral tribunal has repeatedly refused to stay proceedings. Delay by Elektrim in seeking relief further militates against granting an injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted
  • Action dismissed