Injunctive Relief

A tracker outlining anticipated key developments in litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

This chapter considers the effects of the recent legal developments concerning attachment (freezing) orders in Switzerland. This article is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to dispute resolution. For a full list of contents visit www.practicallaw.com/disputehandbook.

In Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm), Walker J set aside a freezing injunction which had been granted in support of claims to be determined in a New York arbitration. Walker J held that, in the absence of factors connecting the defendants with the jurisdiction (such as residence or the presence of assets within the jurisdiction), the English court should not intervene. Furthermore, the evidence had failed to establish that it would be just and convenient to grant the injunction, or that the requisite degree of urgency existed. The case is significant in a number of respects. It confirms that the court's power, under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to intervene to support a foreign arbitration is analogous to the court's power under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in respect of foreign litigation, and that similar principles apply in each case. In non-fraud cases, a clear connection with England and Wales is required before the English court will exercise its long-arm jurisdiction under either provision. However, the judgment of Walker J leaves open a number of unanswered questions in connection with the exercise of the court's discretion under section 44.