Anti-Suit Injunctions
West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione (the "Front
Comor")
This is reported at [2007] All ER (Comm). Whether the
principle in Turner v. Grovit (see Issues 5-7) applied to
arbitration clauses has been the subject of much divided
opinion. The House of Lords considered this question to be of
practical importance and used the decision to refer to the
European Court the following question:-
"Is it consistent with EC Reg.44/2001 for a court of a
Member State to make an order to restrain a person from
commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member State
on the grounds that such proceedings are in breach of an
arbitration agreement?"
It is clear from the views of all members of the House of
Lords that they considered the answer should be an affirmative
one.
The House of Lords agreed with the views of the court of
first instance on two issues. First, granting such an
injunction was not inconsistent with the New York Convention.
Second, the English court should not exercise its discretion to
refuse to restrain proceedings in another member state.
We await the European Court's decision.
Starlight Shipping Co and Another v. Tai Ping Insurance
Co Limited
This is reported at [2007] All ER (D) p.8. In Issue 8 we
considered the decision in Cetelem v. Roust Holdings and the
jurisdiction under s.44 of the 1996 Act to grant injunctive
relief in aid of the arbitration process. That left over the
relationship of s.37 of the SCA with s.44. We looked at this
briefly in Elektrim v. Vivendi (No2).
Background
The First and Second Claimants were respective Owner and
Manager of a vessel chartered to T. The charter included an
English law and arbitration clause. T subchartered the vessel
to the Second Defendant on identical terms as to law and
arbitration. A bill of lading was issued and the Second
Defendants became a party to the bill of lading contract. The
bill of lading incorporated the arbitration clause from the
charter. The arbitration was to comprise three persons being
members of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association
("LMAA"). During the voyage, the vessel and cargo
were lost.
In March 2007 the First Defendant (being the insurers of the
Second Defendant) obtained a "Civil Award" from the
Wuhan Maritime Court in China against the First Claimant and T.
In June 2007 the First and Second Claimants objected to the
jurisdiction of the Wuhan Maritime Court on the grounds of the
arbitration clause, but the evidence when such an objection
would be heard by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial