Suchergebnisse

In the course of arbitral proceedings (whether before or during proceedings) a party may need to seek injunctive relief. The use of injunctive relief in international commercial arbitration is nothing new and must not be seen as incompatible with the underlining principles of commercial arbitration such as party autonomy, separability and kompetenz-kompetenz. Many institutional rules1 and arbitration legislation2 allow parties to apply to an appropriate court for injunctive relief. Indeed, injunctions can be very crucial to the outcome of a claim given that there are situations where the tribunal may not yet be constituted or lacks the power to grant the relief sought. For example, s.44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) is seen as a supporting measure by which the courts can assist arbitral proceedings by granting an interim injunction so as to preserve evidence and assets in appropriate situations.3 Hence, arbitral proceedings can be secured by prompt early injunctive relief of the type that can only be granted by the courts.

Anti-suit injunctions are orders restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before a state court and can be issued by a court or arbitral tribunal. This book examines if and when anti-suit injunctions can be ordered, and it contemplates their legal conformity. It deals with jurisdictions familiar with anti-suit injunctions (e.g. England and the US) and compares these with the legal setting in Switzerland. The analysis not only relies on publicly available material, but also on confidential arbitral case law. Besides information on arbitral proceedings reported directly by ar

Where a party amenable to the jurisdiction of the English courts commences proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, the English courts have always shown their willingness to injunct such a party. While such injunctions are seen as controversial, nevertheless they have been a useful tool at the disposal of the English courts. Over the years, English courts have demonstrated their willingness to grant anti-suit injunctions under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA) 1 so as to uphold the sanctity of arbitration agreements. In February 2009, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its much-anticipated decision in Allianz SPA v West Tankers Inc (The Front Comor) 2 where it ruled that the English courts could no longer grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to arbitration in EU cases.3 In 2010, the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs prepared a report4 on the European Commission's proposal to amend the Brussels Regulation. The Report opposes the deletion of the arbitration exclusion in art.1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation5 and suggests the clarification of the point that judicial proceedings ruling on the validity of arbitral competence are excluded from the scope of the Brussels Regulation.6 The Report further suggests that art.31 of the Regulation should be revised so as to provide that no judgment should be recognised in Member States if the court concerned disregarded an arbitration rule of the State in which enforcement is sought unless the judgment of that Member State would produce the same result as if the law of arbitration of the Member State in which enforcement is sought had been applied.7

The paper describes a new legal remedy against foreign arbitration tribunals in the face of sanctions imposed against Russian people, briefly discloses its origins and application abroad, the first judicial practice. The author, based on the analysis of foreign and Russian literature, judicial practice, deduces basic features of anti-suit injunction. Particular attention is paid to the fact in issue stipulated in Article 248.2 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The paper provides a rationale for the optional nature of unenforceability of arbitration agreements.