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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT