C and D
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Qatar
- Posture
- Application for Injunction/interim Relief in Connection With an Arbitration / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Interim Relief Application
- Language
- English
More details
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that, as the court of the seat of the arbitration and the Competent Court under Law No. 2 of 2017 issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters, it had jurisdiction to determine the application for interim relief in circumstances where an arbitral tribunal could not yet act, or act effectively; however, on the facts then before it, the Court declined to grant the requested relief.
Court disposition
Jurisdiction affirmed; relief refused
Orders
- Jurisdiction upheld to hear the application.
- Application for injunction/interim relief declined.
- Only the Note of the ruling to be made available due to confidentiality.
02
Material facts
Parties
C
ApplicantD
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Case No.: 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Injunction/interim Relief in Connection With an Arbitration / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Interim Relief Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for interim relief in support of an arbitration seated in the Qatar Financial Centre
- 02
Whether relief could be granted before an arbitral tribunal could act effectively
Party arguments
- Applicant
- C applied for interim relief/precautionary measures by way of an injunction maintaining the status quo pending determination of the dispute and stated it was in the process of filing an Arbitration Request.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's note on ruling
The court of the seat of the arbitration may have jurisdiction to deal with an application for interim relief where an arbitral tribunal cannot yet act, or act effectively.
- 02
Court's note on ruling
As the Competent Court under Law No. 2 of 2017 issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Court could deal with the application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that, as the court of the seat of the arbitration and the Competent Court under Law No. 2 of 2017 issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters, it had jurisdiction to determine the application for interim relief in circumstances where an arbitral tribunal could not yet act, or act effectively; however, on the facts then before it, the Court declined to grant the requested relief.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted its policy to protect the confidentiality of arbitrations and therefore directed that only the Note of the ruling be made available.
Court disposition
Jurisdiction affirmed; relief refused
- Jurisdiction upheld to hear the application.
- Application for injunction/interim relief declined.
- Only the Note of the ruling to be made available due to confidentiality.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar Neutral Citation: [2021] QIC (F) 8
IN THE CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL COURT
OF THE QATAR FINANCIAL CENTRE
FIRST INSTANCE CIRCUIT 17 March 2021 Case No: CTFIC0004/2021 C and D Applicant Respondent _______________ Note on Ruling _______________ Members of the Court: Justice Frances Kirkham Justice William Blair Justice Fritz Brand Note on Ruling 1. This Note is issued by the Court following a ruling on an application to the Court for an injunction in connection with an arbitration. This Note deals solely with the issue of jurisdiction. Since the matter relates to an arbitration, the Court has anonymised the names of the parties.
2. The facts so far as relevant are that C, a company not established within the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC), entered into a contract with D, also a company not established in the QFC. The contract provided for LCIA arbitration and provided that, “The seat of the arbitration be the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) in the Qatar Financial Centre, Qatar (QFC) and the venue of the arbitration shall be Qatar”.
3. C applied to the Court for interim relief/precautionary measures in relation to the contract by way of an injunction maintaining the status quo pending determination of the dispute.
4. C stated that it was in the process of filing an Arbitration Request in relation to the dispute.
5. The application to the Court was filed on 16 February 2021 and decided by the Court on 21 February 2021.
6. As the court of the seat of the arbitration, and the Competent Court under Law No. 2 of 2017 issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to deal with the application, in circumstances in which an arbitral tribunal could not yet act, or act effectively.
7. The Court however declined to grant relief on the facts before it at the time of the application.
8. Because it is the Court’s policy to protect the confidentiality of arbitrations, and as no point arises of general interest apart from the issue of jurisdiction, the Court directed that only this Note of the ruling be made available. By the Court, Justice Frances Kirkham
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.