C v D
By choosing London as the seat of arbitration, the parties agreed that challenges to the award could be brought only in the English courts, so an anti-suit injunction was granted to prevent a challenge in New York.
Facts
C, an insured, and D, an insurer, were parties to an insurance policy governed by New York law, which provided for arbitration in London under the Arbitration Act 1996. The tribunal made an award in favour of C. D proposed to challenge the award in the United States courts, on the ground that the tribunal had manifestly disregarded New York law. C sought an anti-suit injunction from the English court.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction. Longmore LJ said that the choice of the seat of arbitration must be a choice of forum for remedies seeking to attack the award, and that, by choosing London as the seat, the parties had agreed that any challenge to an interim or final award was to be made only in the courts of the place designated as the seat. The fact that the main contract was governed by New York law did not mean that the arbitration agreement was governed by New York law, and the arbitration agreement was more closely connected with English law. A challenge in the United States courts would be a breach of the arbitration agreement.
Related cases on jurisdiction, the tribunal and the supervisory role of the courts
- AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35, [2013] 1 WLR 1889
- Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc (The Front Comor) Case C-185/07, [2009] ECR I-663
- Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46, [2011] 1 AC 763
- Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, [2021] AC 1083
- UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30
Studying arbitration? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
