Insights and opinions on the latest legal, regulatory and market developments impacting international business
Insights and opinions on the latest legal, regulatory and market developments impacting international business
By Jonathan Hew
A recent High Court judgment has highlighted the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements and the difficulties of challenging arbitral awards on public policy grounds. In National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 510 (Comm), Mr Justice Burton commented on the following aspects of arbitration law and public policy:
In circumstances where the parties have already chosen arbitration as a means of settling disputes, the English courts will give short shrift to arguments focused on practical difficulties in providing witness evidence or on a strong connection between the claim and another jurisdiction.
The facts
In Hanaro Shipping Co Ltd v Cofftea Trading Co Ltd, the claimant cargo carriers and the defendant cargo receiver had entered into a bill of lading for the transportation of a shipment of sugar from Thailand to Sudan. The defendant argued that the shipment had been delayed and contaminated during shipping and commenced court proceedings in Sudan despite an arbitration clause in the bill of lading providing for arbitration under English law seated in London. The claimant obtained an anti-suit injunction preventing the defendant from continuing its claim in Sudan and in this case applied for the continuation of the injunction.
The English High Court has again demonstrated its willingness to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in support of arbitration proceedings by granting an anti-suit injunction and a freezing order against a party which started foreign court proceedings despite an arbitration agreement. This judgment emphasises the English courts’ desire to uphold and protect arbitration agreements when a party tries to evade arbitration.