UK: The Court Of Appeal Confirms The Jurisdiction Of English Courts To Restrain A Foreign Arbitration In An ‘Exceptional' Case

Last Updated: 30 July 2019
Article by Nicholas Peacock
Most Read Contributor in UK, August 2019

In Sabbagh v Khoury and others, [2019] EWCA Civ 1219 (available here), the English Court of Appeal partly upheld the injunction granted by the Commercial Court restraining the pursuit of arbitration proceedings seated in Lebanon. In doing so, the Court of Appeal confirmed the power of English courts to restrain a foreign arbitration on grounds that the foreign arbitration is oppressive and vexatious and provided helpful guidance on the exceptional circumstances in which English courts may exercise this power.

Background and procedural history

In our analysis of the English Commercial Court’s decision which was under appeal, we described the background to the Sabbagh family feud and the procedural history of the application to restrain arbitration proceedings in Lebanon.

In summary, in July 2013, Ms Sana Sabbagh issued proceedings in the Commercial Court against various defendants including her brothers in connection with the assets of their late father, Mr Hassib Sabbagh. Sana’s claims are two-fold: first, she alleges that the defendants conspired to misappropriate assets belonging to Hassib (the “asset misappropriation claim“); and second, she alleges that the defendants conspired to deprive her of her entitlement to the shares in CCG (the “share deprivation claim“), the ultimate holding company of the Consolidated Contractors Company group which is the largest engineering and construction business in the Middle East.

Sana established jurisdiction on the basis that one of the defendants is resident in England – this is also the only connection of the underlying dispute with England.

After Sana had commenced the English proceedings, the defendants (also the “Arbitration Claimants“) initiated arbitration proceedings seated in Lebanon pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the articles of association of CCG (the "Lebanese Arbitration"). The Arbitration Claimants sought a declaration of the entitlement of the shares of the various parties, including Sana, in CCG (the “shares claim“) and a determination of the balance of any monies owed by CCG on Hassib’s shareholder’s account (the “assets claim“). Sana declined to participate in the Lebanese Arbitration and disputed the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal on the grounds that the claims did not fall within the arbitration agreement and that in any event, she is not a party to the arbitration agreement. The tribunal in the Lebanese Arbitration has ruled that it has jurisdiction over the claims.

In July 2017, the Court of Appeal refused the Arbitration Claimants' request to stay the English proceedings in favour of the Lebanese Arbitration (the “2017 judgment“). It held that neither the asset misappropriation claim nor the share deprivation claim fell within the terms of the relevant arbitration agreement.

The Commercial Court’s decision and the grounds of appeal

Following the 2017 judgment, Sana applied to the Commercial Court for an injunction restraining the Arbitration Claimants from prosecuting the Lebanese Arbitration, seeking recognition or enforcement of any award made in it, and requiring the Arbitration Claimants to take steps to stay the arbitration. The Commercial Court granted the application (we analysed that decision here). Mr Justice Knowles found that in light of the 2017 judgment, it would be oppressive and vexatious for the Arbitration Claimants to continue with the Lebanese Arbitration.

The Arbitration Claimants sought and were granted permission to appeal on the following two propositions:

  • English courts do not have the power to restrain the pursuit of a foreign arbitration, having regard to the scheme of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the 1958 New York Convention (“First Ground“); and
  • It was a precondition to the grant of the injunction that England be the “natural forum” for the underlying dispute and England was not the “natural forum” for the claims in the English proceedings (“Second Ground“).

Decision of the Court of Appeal

Before addressing the points of principle arising out of the two grounds of appeal, Lord Justice Richards (with whom Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Sir Timothy Lloyd agreed) examined the claims made in the Lebanese Arbitration (set out above) and whether those claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The parties accepted that the assets claim in the Lebanese Arbitration was indistinguishable from the asset misappropriation claim in the English proceedings. Accordingly, the 2017 judgment applied – the assets claim in the Lebanese Arbitration did not fall within the arbitration provision.

However, there was disagreement between the parties on whether the shares claim in the Lebanese Arbitration was similarly indistinguishable from the share deprivation claim in the English proceedings. When the English proceedings were issued in 2013, the reliefs claimed by Sana included an order for the restitution of the shares to which she claimed to be entitled (in other words, an order for the re-transfer of the CCG shares to Sana). In 2014, however, Sana limited her claim to a personal claim for damages for the loss of the property (i.e. the CCG shares to which she would otherwise be entitled). The share deprivation claim was therefore a claim for damages, rather than a claim to be recognised as a shareholder of CCG.

Lord Justice Richards noted that the fact that the share deprivation claim was limited in this manner was central to the Court of Appeal’s refusal to stay (in the 2017 judgment) the share deprivation claim in favour of the Lebanese Arbitration. This was because the parties agreed that in principle, a claim to be a shareholder in CCG was subject to arbitration under the arbitration agreement of CCG’s articles of association. Lord Justice Richards concluded that the shares claim in the Lebanese Arbitration which was not limited in the same manner was accordingly within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The points of principle were then analysed in the context of this finding.

First Ground: Jurisdiction of the English courts to grant an injunction restraining a foreign arbitration

The Arbitration Claimants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain the pursuit of a foreign arbitration, specifically on the basis that the foreign arbitration is oppressive and vexatious, because the grant of such an injunction is fundamentally inconsistent with the scheme of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the 1958 New York Convention.

Even though neither the Arbitration Act nor the New York Convention expressly prohibited anti-arbitration injunctions in respect of foreign arbitration, the Arbitration Claimants argued that these instruments emphasised the limited role of English courts in relation to foreign arbitrations and set out the specific circumstances and manner in which an English court may intervene. The absence of any express power to restrain foreign arbitration suggested that English courts did not have such power.

Lord Justice Richards rejected this argument and held that English courts have the jurisdiction to grant such an injunction. He found that the power of an English court to grant an injunction is conferred by section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It is well established that an injunction may be granted to restrain foreign (court) proceedings where the pursuit of such proceedings is oppressive and vexatious. There is no reason that a similar power should not exist in relation to foreign arbitrations unless such power is modified / excluded by statute (i.e. the Arbitration Act). However, Lord Justice Richards held that it was not possible to extract such a modification / exclusion from the Arbitration Act. Section 1(c) of the Act (“in matters governed by this Part [Part 1 of the Arbitration Act] the court should not intervene except as provided by this Act“) was not determinative as: first, matters governed by Part 1 are ordinarily English-seated arbitrations (and not foreign arbitrations); and second, the word “should” and not “shall” was deliberately chosen for section 1(c) – this makes clear that section 1(c) implies a need for caution before, rather than an absolute prohibition of, any court intervention (citing Lord Mance’s judgment in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35).

Will the court grant an anti-arbitration injunction where the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement?

Under the first ground of appeal, the Arbitration Claimants also advanced a narrower submission that even if an English court has jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction, it will not do so where the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

Lord Justice Richards found the logic of this submission “irresistible“. Where a dispute falls within the arbitration agreement, an English court would be bound under section 9 of the Arbitration Act to stay the English proceedings in which the same claim was made. It would follow that the court either has no power, or should not exercise it, to grant an anti-arbitration injunction. Indeed, granting such an injunction would be wholly contrary to the fundamental principle underpinning the New York Convention and the Arbitration Act of respecting and giving effect to arbitration agreements.

On this basis, and in light of the examination of the claims in the Lebanese Arbitration (set out above), Lord Justice Richards noted that the shares claim in the Lebanese Arbitration was within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, an injunction restraining the Arbitration Claimants from prosecuting the shares claim could not be granted.

However, this did not affect the assets claim in the Lebanese Arbitration as the Arbitration Claimants had accepted that the 2017 judgment holding that the assets claim (indistinguishable from the assets misappropriation claim in the English proceedings) was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Second Ground: Is it a precondition to the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction that England is the natural forum for the underlying dispute?

The Arbitration Claimants submitted that, just as with anti-suit injunctions, English courts should not restrain a foreign arbitration on the basis that the arbitration was oppressive and vexatious unless England is the “natural forum” for the underlying dispute. As noted above, the only connection of the underlying dispute with England was that one of the defendants was resident in England.

Lord Justice Richards rejected this submission. He noted that the rationale underlying this precondition for anti-suit injunctions on grounds of oppressive and vexatious conduct was that the anti-suit injunction involved an indirect interference with the sovereign jurisdiction of the courts of foreign states. Since this is inconsistent with the principles of comity, it must be kept within strict bounds and the test of natural forum is one of the key means of achieving this. Lord Justice Richards found that this rationale did not apply to a foreign arbitration. An anti-arbitration injunction does not involve an interference with the jurisdiction of a foreign court (except in the “very indirect way” of interfering with a foreign court’s supervisory jurisdiction).

In conclusion, Lord Justice Richards rejected the principled submissions made by the Arbitration Claimants. However, he allowed the appeal and discharged the injunction as regards the shares claim in the Lebanese Arbitration on the basis that the shares claim was within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement. The injunction as regards the assets claim remains in force.

Comment

Like the decision of the English Commercial Court, the decision of the English Court of Appeal to partly uphold the injunction restraining a foreign arbitration where the underlying dispute has little or no connection with England may seem odd at first glance. Indeed, like Mr Justice Knowles, Lord Justice Richards emphasised the exceptional nature of granting such an injunction on the grounds that the foreign arbitration proceedings are oppressive and vexatious.

More significantly, the Court of Appeal has provided welcome appellate guidance on the powers of English courts to grant such an injunction (indeed, this is the first time the Court of Appeal has fully considered the points of principle which such an injunction raises):

  • English courts have the power to grant such an anti-arbitration injunction where it is just and convenient to do so (section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981).
  • However, since such an injunction interferes with the fundamental principle that courts should respect, and give effect to, arbitration agreements, where it is clear that the dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement, no injunction should be granted.
  • When the converse is true (i.e. it is clear that the dispute is outside the scope of the arbitration agreement) either because it is common ground between the parties or because of a previous determination (e.g. pursuant to an application to stay proceedings before English courts), the court may grant an anti-arbitration injunction but only if the circumstances of the case require it (e.g. when the proceedings are considered oppressive and vexatious).
  • Save in the case of exclusive jurisdiction agreements, the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction remains an exceptional step.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions