Interim Measures: Arbitration

This note examines the rules of the leading arbitral institutions on the appointment of emergency arbitrators. It discusses when emergency arbitrators are needed, how they are appointed, their powers, the procedure they follow and how their orders are enforced. The note also looks at what happens when the full tribunal is subsequently consituted. The note examines in detail the emergency arbitrator procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution, Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI), Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance (PRIME Finance) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA).

A table outlining the key stages of the reform of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Regulation).

A case tracker outlining progress in the case of West Tankers v Allianz SpA and another, including summaries of the decisions and links to associated PLC legal updates and articles.

For an example claim form for an anti-suit injunction under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (or both), in support of arbitration proceedings, please click here.

For an example witness statement in support of a claim for an anti-suit injunction under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (or both), please click here.

This case study provides a worked example of a draft order for an interim request for security for costs under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, with integrated drafting notes.

An article highlighting the key arbitration-related developments in Singapore in 2012. 

A number of arbitration-related developments are expected in 2013 and beyond. This article highlights the key areas to watch.

This article summarises the results of the 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process.

The table below provides a high-level summary of the enforceability of arbitral awards in 26 jurisdictions across the globe. This table is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

An article highlighting the key arbitration-related developments in England and Wales in 2011/2012. 

A number of arbitration-related developments are expected in 2012. This article highlights key areas to watch.

An examination of developments in international arbitration over the last five years in some of the key jurisdictions across the globe.

An article highlighting the key arbitration related developments in the Russian Federation in 2010. 

An article highlighting the key arbitration related developments in Switzerland in 2010/2011. 

A number of arbitration-related developments are expected in the second half of 2010. The key areas to watch are highlighted in this article.

A number of arbitration related developments are expected in 2010. The key areas to watch are highlighted in this article.

This note highlights the arbitration related developments expected in the second half of 2009.

This article addresses the concept of "anti-arbitration" injunctions, made to restrain arbitrations. Consideration is given to the important case of Weissfisch v Julius, against the background of previous caselaw and academic commentary.

In Chevron and another v Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), the tribunal considered the claimants' request for further interim relief as a result of Ecuador's breaches of earlier interim awards.

We have published an article discussing the treatment of the "arbitration exclusion" in the recast of the Brussels Regulation.

This article summarises the results of the QMUL 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process.

We have updated our quick guides on enforcing arbitration awards and interim remedies to reflect the information contained in the PLC Cross-Border Arbitration multi-jurisdictional guide 2012/2013. (Free access.)

Natalia Belomestnova (Senior Associate), Goltsblat BLP On 15 August 2012, the Moscow Commercial Court considered an application for an anti-suit injunction. Even though the court dismissed the application on formal grounds, it did not rule out the possibility of such injunctions being granted by the Russian court.

Eduardo Damião Gonçalves (Partner), Flávio Spaccaquerche Barbosa (Associate) and Diego Nocetti (Associate), Mattos Filho Advogados The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice has ruled on the extent of state courts', and arbitral tribunals', jurisdiction when issuing pre-arbitral interim measures. This is the first time that the issue has come before this court.  Although state courts have the power to issue preliminary measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, they must not conduct proceedings in parallel with an ongoing arbitration.

Eduardo Damião Gonçalves (Partner), Flávio Spaccaquerche Barbosa (Associate) and Marcel Alberge Ribas (Associate), Mattos Filho Advogados An international legal battle of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions arose from diverging interpretations of the applicable law and scope of an arbitration clause in an insurance policy. The express provision indicating Brazilian law raised the debate over specific rules applicable to adhesion contracts in Brazil, as well as the law governing the arbitration agreement where the parties had chosen London as the seat of arbitration.

In Joint Stock Asset Management Company "Ingosstrakh Investments" v BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644, the Court of Appeal considered whether to restrain Russian proceedings, the subject of matter of which fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

In Sulamerica CIA Nacional de Seguros SA and others v Enesa Engenharia SA and others [2012] EWCA Civ 638, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against an anti-suit injunction restraining Brazilian proceedings, and gave guidance on determining the law governing an arbitration agreement between the parties.

Liz Kantor, Herbert Smith LLP In the most recent of the long-running series of decisions in the West Tankers saga, the English court has found that the majority of the tribunal was wrong to decline jurisdiction to award equitable damages or to declare a party liable for an indemnity for breach of an arbitration clause.  Subject to any successful appeal, this decision makes it clear that there is scope for a party in the EU who is faced with parallel proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement to seek damages and an indemnity from an arbitration tribunal for that breach. 

In West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA and another [2012] EWHC 854 (Comm), Flaux J considered whether EU law precluded a London arbitration tribunal from granting relief that might be inconsistent with the decision of an EU member state court.

In Chevron Corporation and another v Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23) (Second Interim Award on Interim Measures (16 February 2012), a UNCITRAL tribunal has issued interim awards requiring the Republic of Ecuador to take all necessary measures to suspend the enforcement of an Ecuadorian court judgment, and ruling that it has jurisdiction to determine the claims advanced by Chevron and its indirectly owned subsidiary.

Ms. Priyanka Gandhi (Associate) and Ms. Neha Samant (Trainee), Juris Corp   In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief under Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and held that Part I applied because the parties had neither expressly nor impliedly excluded its applicability.

Eduardo Damião Gonçalves (Partner), Flávio Spaccaquerche Barbosa (Associate) and Diego Nocetti (Associate), Mattos Filho Advogados In a decision of 23 November 2011, the Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo (TJSP) acknowledged the supportive role of the judiciary in pre-arbitral injunctions. In this case the parties had executed a contract containing an arbitration agreement under which the parties were allowed to apply for any urgent interim measures directly to state courts. However, the claimant's request to the court for an urgent interim measure was denied by a lower court judge on the ground that such a measure would be within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. After the filing of an appeal, the TJSP overturned the lower court’s decision.

Priyanka Gandhi (Associate) and Neha Samant (Trainee), Juris Corp In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India held that an appeal against an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal seated outside India is not maintainable as the seat of arbitration was outside India and the arbitration proceedings were governed by foreign law. The court held that Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was impliedly excluded.

Nicholas Peacock (Partner) and Chris Ross (Senior Associate), Herbert Smith LLP The Singapore High Court has dismissed an appeal against an order staying proceedings in favour of foreign arbitration. The High Court rejected the argument that there was no dispute between the parties warranting a stay of proceedings, holding that the courts would readily find that a dispute exists unless the defendant admitted the claim was due and payable. This was regardless of whether the defendant had mistakenly made an admission to the claim previously.

The UK government has decided to opt in to the European Commission's proposals for reform of the Brussels Regulation and to participate in negotiations.

On 25 February 2011, the Justice and Home Affairs Council took note of the latest European Commission proposal reviewing Council Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I Regulation).

The European Commission has published its proposals for the reform of the Brussels Regulation. (Free access).

Neha Vijayvargiya (Associate) and Priyanka Gandhi (Associate) , Juris Corp In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court (High Court) restrained World Sports Group (Mauritius) Ltd (respondent) from continuing with a foreign arbitration on the grounds that the agreement which contained the arbitration provisions was: Vitiated by fraud. Contrary to Indian public policy. Involved and affected the rights of a third party.

Natalia Belomestnova (Associate), Goltsblat BLP The Russian Federation's Supreme Commercial Court has extended an earlier decision to grant interim measures in support of foreign arbitrations to include foreign court proceedings.

Publication of updated quick guides on enforcing arbitration awards and interim remedies.

Ruth Byrne (Solicitor Advocate) and Joanne Greenaway (Professional Support Lawyer), Herbert Smith LLP The English Commercial Court has held that it had jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief even though there was no actual, proposed or intended arbitration. This decision is of practical significance for parties who, while not wishing to commence arbitration, wish to rely on an arbitration clause so as to restrain their counterparty from suing them other than by means of arbitration. 

Ruth Byrne (Solicitor Advocate) and Joanne Greenaway (Professional Support Lawyer), Herbert Smith LLP The English Court of Appeal has ruled that an arbitration agreement did not confer wider powers to grant injunctive relief than those conferred to by section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Clear words would be needed to escape the section 44 restrictions.

Ruth Byrne (Solicitor Advocate) and Joanne Greenaway (Professional Support Lawyer), Herbert Smith LLP The English Court of Appeal has granted an anti-suit injunction restraining Tunisian proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. The Court confirmed that court proceedings which seek negative declaratory relief can amount to a repudiatory breach of the arbitration agreement and, as such, can be restrained by injunctive relief.

The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs has published a working document on on the green paper on the review of the Brussels Regulation.

John Choong (Senior Associate), Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP In Prema Birkdale Horticulture (Macau) Limited v Venetian Orient Limited and Anor HCMP905/2009, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance considered recent legislation granting the court the power to grant interim relief in relation to proceedings outside Hong Kong.

An update on the House of Lords EU Committee and Law Society responses to the European Commission's Report and Green Paper on the application of the Brussels Regulation.

Olof Ragmark (Partner), Delphi The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) is considering the adoption of rules on emergency interim measures which will supplement the SCC Arbitration Rules currently in force. The proposed new rules would provide for the possibility of obtaining interim measures of protection prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal with the help of a so called "emergency arbitrator" specifically appointed for that purpose by the SCC Institute.

Bree Farrugia (Solicitor Advocate), Herbert Smith LLP The French Committee on Arbitration (FCA) has issued a Response to the European Commission's Green Paper on the application of the Brussels Regulation. The FCA Response expresses a number of concerns regarding the proposed modifications as they relate to arbitration.

Publication of a new Practice note, Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreement: anti-suit injunctions.

The European Commission has adopted a report and green paper on Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Regulation).

Publication of new sections in the quick guides on interim remedies and enforcing arbitration awards.

An update on Sergei Paushok and ors v Government of Mongolia (Order on Interim Measures), which considered interim measures under article 26 of the UNCITRAL Rules.

On 4 September 2008, Advocate General Kokott delivered her opinion that anti-suit injunctions against proceedings in another member state brought in breach of an arbitration agreement are incompatible with EC law.

The Advocate General (AG) of the European Court of Justice has delivered her Opinion indicating that anti-suit injunctions to give effect to arbitration agreements are not compatible with the Brussels Regulation (the Regulation). As previously reported by PLC Dispute Resolution (see Legal update, Lords seek ruling on whether arbitration anti-suit injunction consistent with Brussels Regulation) the House of Lords, in February 2007, referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on this issue. In her Opinion (Allianz SpA (Formerly Riunione Adriatica Di Scurta Spa) and others v West Tankers Inc, Case C-185/07) Kokott AG concluded that the question of whether or not proceedings fall within the scope of the Regulation must be determined from the "substantive subject-matter of the dispute". In West Tankers the subject matter of the foreign court proceedings (alleged to be in breach of an arbitration agreement) was a claim for damages. Such a claim fell within the scope of the Regulation. The existence and applicability of an arbitration clause "merely constitute a preliminary issue" which the court seised must address when examining whether it has jurisdiction. Kokott AG recognised that this interpretation may give rise to conflicting decisions by arbitral bodies and national courts. However, the party asserting a valid arbitration clause is free to argue its case before the foreign court. The use of unilateral anti-suit injunctions is not the answe

An ICSID tribunal has refused the claimants' request for provisional measures in arbitration proceedings between Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11). The claimants alleged various breaches of domestic and international law, and under the US/Ecuador BIT, in respect of the oil concession granted to them by Ecuador in 1999. The claimants issued a request for provisional measures which was, in essence, intended to preserve their alleged right to specific performance of the underlying contract. The tribunal rejected the application, finding unanimously that the claimants had failed to demonstrate that an order for provisional measures was justified in the circumstances. The claimants had to establish a right to be protected, which in this case would be the right to specific performance of the underlying contract and the right to non-aggravation of the dispute. However, they failed to establish a "strongly arguable" case that a right to specific performance exists where a natural resources concession agreement has been terminated by a State. The tribunal proceeded on the basis that "full reparation", rather than restitution, is the appropriate remedy where a party is injured by an alleged illegal act. This can be achieved by restitution in kind (synonymous with specific performance) but where that is not possible, monetary compensation is the remedy. Specific performance is

PLC Dispute Resolution has published a new Practice note, Interim, provisional and conservatory measures in international arbitration. The note identifies the situations in which an interim measure may be necessary, and provides guidance on how and to whom to apply for such an order.

In Noble Assurance Company and another v Gerling-Konzen [2007] EWHC 253 (Comm) the court considered whether to continue an anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing proceedings in Vermont, brought in breach of a London arbitration agreement. The court considered that the defendant's conduct had been vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of process and/or unconscionable. The defendant had had the opportunity to raise the allegations made in the Vermont proceedings before the arbitral tribunal and had decided not to. Further, the Vermont proceedings were based on a false reading of the award. The judge emphasised the importance of avoiding the appearance of interfering with a foreign court. Instead of continuing the anti-suit injunction, he made a declaration confirming the scope and validity of the award, on the basis that this might best serve the ends of justice, by providing a basis on which the Vermont proceedings could be dismissed.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Hong Kong. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Singapore. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Brazil. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Malta. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Turkey. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an anti-suit injunction preventing a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before another court (or arbitral tribunal), in order to enforce an arbitration agreement. An alternative to the anti-suit injunction is the anti-enforcement injunction: an order enjoining a party to an arbitration agreement from enforcing an award or a court judgment. This article considers both anti-suit injunctions and anti-enforcement injunctions, including: anti-suit injunctions issued by state courts; anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals; and a review of the anti-enforcement injunctions as a variant of anti-suit injunction. This article is part of the PLC Arbitration multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Austria. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in China. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in France. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Hungary. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Italy. The Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in Lithuania. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in South Africa. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in the UK (England and Wales). The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Arbitration procedures and practice Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to arbitration. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

This chapter outlines how the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules 2012 differ from the previous rules governing CIETAC, and considers the practical implications of the changes. This article is part of the PLC Arbitration multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/arbitration-mjg.

Drafting notes to accompany the draft order in support of an application for an anti-suit injunction under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (or both).

In Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35, the Supreme Court considered whether the court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief where there was no actual or intended arbitration.

In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others [2013] EWHC 1323 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered an application for an order requiring disclosure of assets worldwide pursuant to section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Genentech, Inc, No. 2012-1454 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013), the Federal Circuit considered whether to affirm a denial of a motion for an injunction to prevent related arbitration proceedings.

In Wealcan Enterprises v Banque Algerienne du Commerce Exterieur SA [2012] EWHC 4151 (Comm), Popplewell J considered whether a guarantee provided in respect of security for costs extended to arbitrator fees.

The Bombay High Court has granted an anti-arbitration injunction, restraining a foreign party from joining an Indian non-party to an arbitration agreement into an international arbitration.

In Commerce Group Corp and San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc v El Salvador (ICSID Case No ARB/09/17 (Annulment Proceeding)), an ad hoc committee considered whether it had power to order security for costs in annulment proceedings.

In Sulamerica CIA Nacional De Seguros SA and others v Enesa Engenharia SA and others [2012] EWHC 42 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered issues relating to the proper law and interpretation of a clause that provided for both mediation and arbitration.

Allen & Overy comment on the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647, on the English courts' jurisdiction to grant final injunctions restraining foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, where there is no actual, proposed or intended arbitration. Note: This decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court, the appeal being listed for hearing on 1 May 2013.

In B v S [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm), Flaux J considered whether the FOSFA Scott v Avery clause excludes the right of the parties to apply to the English court for injunctive relief pursuant to section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 3003 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered the principles which apply when deciding whether to continue an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings. Note that this decision was overturned on appeal on 20 January 2012, see Legal update, Court of Appeal overturns finding on anti-suit injunctions.

PD Dr. Nathalie Voser (Partner) and Christopher Boog (Associate), Schellenberg Wittmer (Zurich) In a recent French-language decision dated 13 April 2010 and published on its website on 12 May 2010, the Swiss Federal Tribunal ruled for the first time on an appeal against interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland. The Federal Tribunal held that a petition for setting aside an award was inadmissible where the "award" was a decision regarding interim relief. Moreover, the Swiss Federal Tribunal held that a number of principles regarding interim relief in civil procedure law were also applicable to international arbitration. As it is a leading case, this decision will be published in the official compilation of decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

An update on SAB Miller Africa v Tanzania Breweries Ltd and Another [2010] EWCA Civ 1564, which concerned whether the parties could contractually expand the grounds for court intervention set out in section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

An update on Shashoua and another v Sharma [2010] EWCA Civ 15, in which permission to appeal was granted.

An update on Midgulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimiche Tunisien [2009] EWHC 963 (Comm), which concerned the standard of proof on an application for an interim anti-suit injunction.

An update on Sheffield United FC Ltd v West Ham United FC plc [2008] EWHC 2855 (Comm) which considered the court's jurisdiction to grant anti-arbitration injunctions and stays of court proceedings.

In ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia and anor [2008] EWHC 1689 (Comm), Andrew Smith J considered whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a freezing injunction in support of ICSID arbitration. He held that no such power existed under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), and that even if that was wrong, it would be inexpedient in the circumstances of the case to make the order. The case helpfully clarifies the limits of the court's wide power to grant relief in support of other proceedings, and emphasises that in ICSID arbitration, the proper course is generally to seek any necessary interim relief from the tribunal. NOTE: This decision has been appealed and the appeal dismissed (see Legal update, Court of Appeal confirms freezing injunction not available in support of ICSID arbitration).

In West Tankers Inc (Respondents) v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and others (Appellants) [2007] UKHL 4, the main question facing the House of Lords was whether a Member State court may grant an injunction against a person bound by an arbitration agreement to restrain him from commencing or prosecuting proceedings in the courts of another Member State which has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Brussels Regulation. The dispute involves the Respondents, West Tankers, defending two sets of proceedings. The charterers commenced an arbitration against them in London claiming uninsured losses. The insurers, RAS, initiated Italian court proceedings against West Tankers to recover amounts paid to the insured. In 2005, Colman J granted an injunction restraining RAS from pursuing the Italian proceedings on the basis that it was not inconsistent with the Brussels Regulation to do so. The House of Lords' Opinion of 21 February 2007 provides a clear summary of the English court's jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in the context of arbitration proceedings, and relevant decisions, from both the English Courts and the Court of Justice. The Lords emphasise the importance of party autonomy in arbitration and the legal certainty promoted by the English court's supervisory jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings, a tool which has been carefully developed and applied. Although current English authority is that such injunctions are consistent