Permission to appeal and costs (Tyson v GIC)
Arbitration analysis: The underlying proceedings concern an application by the claimant (‘TICL’) for an interim anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) against the defendant (‘GIC’). GIC applied for a stay pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the AA 1996). Eventually, TICL was granted anti-suit relief, made final on 21 January 2025. Permission to appeal was sought by GIC, and refused by Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a High Court Judge. What is particularly interesting about this case is how permission to appeal was refused notwithstanding that a prior judge (Mr Houseman KC) had given permission on the same point in related proceedings (and indeed the defendant in that case was granted a stay), and another judge (Mr Hancock KC) held that an appeal on the same grounds had a ‘real prospect of success’. Ultimately, permission to appeal which was sought on two grounds was refused. Costs fell in the usual way in TICL’s favour, being the overall winner, but this decision is notable for the judge taking a ‘cautious’ approach given the rates provided being in excess of the London 1 Guideline Rate. Written by Ian Chai, senior associate at Edwin Coe LLP.