Article summary
Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal issued an anti-suit injunction (ASI) against the defendant in support of a London arbitration agreement. In the course of an important judgment, Popplewell LJ (Flaux and Males LJJ agreeing) clarified the principles applicable to the grant of ASIs. Popplewell LJ also brought clarity to the vexed question of the proper law applicable to an arbitration agreement contained in a matrix contract. Henceforth, the general rule—not easily defeasible—is that contracting parties impliedly choose the curial law (law of the seat) as the law of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration clause at issue provided for arbitration in London under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration rules. The defendant had commenced court proceedings in Moscow but the judge at first instance had refused to grant an ASI. Written by Simon Salzedo QC and Frederick Wilmot-Smith, barristers, at Brick Court Chambers, London.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial