- The English courts’ power to exercise jurisdiction to ‘hold the ring’ in support of arbitration
- What interim relief can arbitral tribunals and/or the courts grant?
- Is the courts’ exercise of authority to ‘hold the ring’ becoming less frequently seen?
- Holding the ring and anti-suit injunctions
Arbitration analysis: The courts of England and Wales are known for their non-interventionist approach to arbitration proceedings. Section 1(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) gives this non-interventionist approach statutory force, and provides that the ‘court should not intervene except as provided by the [AA 1996]’. The English courts adopt a supportive approach to arbitrations including by ‘holding the ring’ until the tribunal is constituted or is able to act affectively. AA 1996, s 44 is the most common route under which interim relief in the form of interim injunctions or preservation of evidence/assets is sought from the English courts in support of arbitration. In addition, the Commercial Court granted recently an interim anti-suit injunction against a defendant in respect of foreign proceedings on a without notice basis to ‘hold the ring’. The court did so in circumstances where the defendant party was unwell with coronavirus (COVID-19) and the on-notice merits hearing of the anti-suit application had to be adjourned. The case is another example of supportive jurisdiction of the English courts in relation to arbitrations. Written by Srishti Jain, associate at Keidan Harrison LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial