Supreme Court confirms power to grant declaratory and anti-suit injunctive relief even where no arbitration is commenced or proposed
In AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES UstKamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP  UKSC 35, the Supreme Court has confirmed the jurisdiction of the English courts to declare that a claim can only properly be brought in arbitration, and grant anti-suit injunctions restraining court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, even in the absence of an actual, intended or proposed arbitration.
Following the ECJ’s decision in Allianz SpA & anr v West Tankers Inc (Case C 185/07)  1 AC 1138, the English courts would not grant such an anti-suit injunction where the court proceedings in question are commenced or continued in foreign jurisdictions that are within the regime of the Brussels Regulation or the Lugano Convention.
The judgment also clarifies that the English courts’ jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement derives from s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (the SCA 1981) and not from s44, or any other provision of, the Arbitration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act)…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Allen & Overy
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Allen & Overy
Keeping track of the latest European developments, as well as domestic trends and changes, can be difficult — all the more so for multinational businesses.
For most HR practitioners and in-house counsel, keeping abreast of domestic legal developments can be challenging. For those with a multi-national remit, the task is huge.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Why has Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) decided to walk away from the Singapore qualifying foreign law practice (QFLP) scheme?
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.