Addresses to the French PIL Committee, 2010-2012

The collection of the addresses to the French Private International Law Committee (Comité français de droit international privé) during academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was just published.

The committee is addressed by four speakers each year, typically two young French academics, one practitioner and one foreign academic. The publication includes non only the paper of the speaker, but also the debate which followed (all in French). 

The last volume addressed the following topics: 

Cyril NOURISSAT : La Cour de justice face aux règlements de coopération judiciaire en matière civile et commerciale

Bénédicte VASSALLO : La réception en France des décisions étrangères d’adoption

George A. BERMANN : Les questions liminaires en arbitrage commercial international

Tristan AZZI : La volonté tacite en droit international privé

Sabine CORNELOUP : Les questions préalables de statut personnel dans le fonctionnement des règlements européens de droit international privé

Horatia MUIR WATT : Les enjeux de l’affaire Kiobel : le chaînon manquant dans la mise en oeuvre de la responsabilité des entreprises multinationales en droit international public et privé

Sandrine CLAVEL : La place de la fraude en droit international privé contemporain

Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER : La qualification en arbitrage commercial international

ECJ Rules on Compatibility of Rules on Liability of Foreign Parent Companies with Freedom of Establishment

On 20 June 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Impacto Azul Lda v. BPSA 9 and Bouygues on whether national legislation which precludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State is contrary to the European freedom of establishment.

The Case

On 28 July 2006, Portuguese corporations Impacto Azul and BPSA 9 concluded a promissory contract for sale and purchase (‘the contract’) under which Impacto Azul promised to sell a new building to BPSA 9 and the latter undertook to purchase it. According to Impacto Azul, BPSA 9 did not fulfil its contractual obligations. BPSA 9 was 100% owned by SGPS, which also had its seat in Portugal, and which was, in turn, wholly controlled by the French company Bouygues Immobilier, the parent company that managed all of the companies that formed the group. Owing to the economic crisis and unfavourable market conditions, Bouygues Immobilier decided to withdraw from the project thereby causing Impacto Azul to suffer losses caused by that withdrawal.

Following an attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute with BPSA 9, Impacto Azul brought before the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (District Court of Braga) an action for damages against that company for non-performance of the contract and claimed, inter alia, that the breach of contract was attributable primarily to SGPS and to Bouygues Immobilier, as parent companies, in accordance with the joint and several liability of parent companies for the obligations of their subsidiaries under Portuguese law.

The defendants contended that joint and several liability of parent companies did not apply to parent companies having their seat in another Member State under Portuguese law. Bouygues Immobilier having its seat in France, it could not therefore be held liable vis-à-vis the creditors of BPSA 9.

Since that exclusion leads to a difference in treatment between parent companies having their seat in Portugal and parent companies having their seat in another Member State, Impacto Azul alleged an infringement of Article 49 TFEU.

The Judgment

Is the Portuguese legislation a restriction to the European freedom of establishment?

35 It should be pointed out that, having regard to the fact that the rules concerning corporate groups are not harmonised at European Union level, the Member States remain, in principle, competent to determine the law applicable to a debt of a related company. Thus, Portuguese law provides for the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries, only in respect of parent companies having their seat in Portugal. As the Commission correctly points out, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is not contrary to Article 49 TFEU that a Member State may legitimately improve the treatment of claims of groups present on its territory (see, by analogy, Case 237/82 Jongeneel Kaas and Others [1984] ECR 483, paragraph 20).

36 Indeed, exclusion of the application of rules such as those in Article 501 of the CSC to undertakings established in another Member State, pursuant to the rules set out in Article 481(2) of the CSC, is not such as to make less attractive the exercise, by parent companies having their seat in another Member State, of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty.

37 In any event, parent companies having their seat in a Member State other than the Portuguese Republic may choose to adopt, through contractual means, a system of joint and several liability for the debts of their subsidiaries.

Final Ruling:

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State.

ECJ Rules on Impact of Opposition to European Order for Payment on Jurisdiction

On 13 June 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v. Massimo Sperindeo (Case C 144/12) on the impact of opposition to a European Order of Payment on jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation.

European Orders for Payment are issued ex parte. Defendants are entitled to oppose them. If they do, the case is handled under traditional rules of civil procedure. An issue is whether defendants who merely oppose European Orders, but do not challenge jurisdiction at the same time, submit to the jurisdiction of the court which issued the European Order under Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation.

The Case 

On 19 April 2010, Mr Sperindeo, acting through his lawyer, lodged a statement of opposition to the European order for payment within the prescribed time-limit. The grounds for his opposition were that Goldbet’s claim was unfounded and that the sum claimed was not payable.

Prompted by that statement of opposition, the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien referred the case to the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Innsbruck Regional Court), taking the view that the latter court was the competent court for the ordinary civil procedure within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006.

Before the Landesgericht Innsbruck, Mr Sperindeo pleaded, for the first time, a lack of jurisdiction of the Austrian courts, on the ground that he was domiciled in Italy. Goldbet contended that the Landesgericht Innsbruck had jurisdiction as the court for the place of performance of the obligation to pay a sum of money, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001. In any event, according to Goldbet, the Landesgericht Innsbruck had jurisdiction under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, since Mr Sperindeo, having failed to plead lack of jurisdiction when he lodged a statement of opposition to the European order for payment in question, had entered an appearance within the meaning of that article.

The Judgment

The ECJ ruled that the statement of opposition to the European Order can only produce the effects prescribed by Regulation No 1896/2006.

29 [Regulation No 1896/2006] is not adversarial. The defendant will not be aware that the European order for payment has been issued until it is served on him. As is apparent from Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006, it is only then that he is advised of his options either to pay the amount indicated in that order to the claimant or to oppose the order in the court of origin.

30 The defendant’s option of lodging a statement of opposition is thus designed to compensate for the fact that the system established by Regulation No 1896/2006 does not provide for the defendant’s participation in the European order for payment procedure, by enabling him to contest the claim after the European order for payment has been issued.

31 However, where a defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin in his statement of opposition to the European order for payment, that opposition cannot produce, in regard to that defendant, effects other than those that flow from Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006. Those effects consist in the termination of the European order for payment procedure and in leading – unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be terminated in that event – to the automatic transfer of the case to ordinary civil proceedings.

33 It will also be recalled, as is evident from Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006 and from recital 23 in the preamble thereto, that the defendant may use the standard form set out in Annex VI to that regulation in order to enter a statement of opposition to the European order for payment. That form does not provide for the option of contesting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin.

The ECJ also held the European Order and proceedings following opposition are separate. 

38 unlike the circumstances giving rise to that judgment, in which the defendant had put forward arguments on the substance of the case in ordinary civil proceedings, the arguments on the substance of the case were put forward in the main proceedings in this instance in the context of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment. Such a statement of opposition coupled with those arguments cannot be regarded, for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, as the first defence put forward in the ordinary civil proceedings that follow the European order for payment procedure.

39 To consider such a statement of opposition as being equivalent to the first defence would be tantamount to acknowledging, as the Advocate General noted at point 36 of his Opinion, that the European order for payment procedure and the subsequent ordinary civil proceedings, in principle, constitute the same procedure. However, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the fact that the first of those procedures follows the rules laid down by Regulation No 1896/2006, whereas the second continues in accordance with the rules of ordinary civil procedure, as is evident from Article 17(1) of that regulation. Such an interpretation would also fail on account of the fact that although – in the absence of any challenge to international jurisdiction by the defendant – those civil proceedings take their course in the Member State of origin, they will not necessarily be conducted in the same court as that in which the European order for payment procedure is pursued.

Final Ruling:

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.

European Data Protection Authorities Order Google to Comply with European Data Protection Laws

The French data protection authority has issued the following statement this morning.

From February to October 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) investigated into Google’s privacy policy with the aim of checking whether it met the requirements of the European data protection legislation. On the basis of its findings, published on 16 October 2012, the WP29 asked Google to implement its recommendations within four months.

After this period has expired, Google has not implemented any significant compliance measures.

Following new exchanges between Google and a taskforce led by the CNIL, the Data Protection Authorities from France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom have respectively launched enforcement actions against Google.

The investigation led by the CNIL has confirmed Google’s breaches of the French Data Protection Act of 6 January 1978, as amended (hereinafter “French Data Protection Act”) which, in practice, prevents individuals from knowing how their personal data may be used and from controlling such use.

In this context, the CNIL’s Chair has decided to give formal notice to Google Inc., within three months, to:

  • Define specified and explicit purposes to allow users to understand practically the processing of their personal data;
  • Inform users by application of the provisions of Article 32 of the French Data Protection Act, in particular with regard to the purposes pursued by the controller of the processing implemented;
  • Define retention periods for the personal data processed that do not exceed the period necessary for the purposes for which they are collected;
  • Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;
  • Fairly collect and process passive users’ data, in particular with regard to data collected using the “Doubleclick” and “Analytics” cookies, “+1” buttons or any other Google service available on the visited page;
  • Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal.

This formal notice does not aim to substitute for Google to define the concrete measures to be implemented, but rather to make it reach compliance with the legal principles, without hindering either its business model or its innovation ability.

If Google Inc. does not comply with this formal notice at the end of the given time limit, CNIL’s Select Committee (formation restreinte), in charge of sanctioning breaches to the French Data Protection Act, may issue a sanction against the company.

The Data Protection Authorities from Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom carry on their investigations under their respective national procedures and as part of an international administrative cooperation.


  • The Spanish DPA has issued to Google his decision today to open a sanction procedure for the infringement of key principles of the Spanish Data Protection Law.
  • The UK Information Commissioner’s Office is considering whether Google’s updated privacy policy is compliant with the UK Data Protection Act 1998. ICO will shortly be writing to Google to confirm their preliminary findings.
  • The Data Protection Commissioner of Hamburg has opened a formal procedure against the company. It starts with a formal hearing as required by public administrative law, which may lead to the release of an administrative order requiring Google to implement measures in order to comply with German national data protection legislation.
  • As part of the investigation, the Dutch DPA will first issue a confidential report of preliminary findings, and ask Google to provide its view on the report. The Dutch DPA will use this view in its definite report of findings, after which it may decide to impose a sanction.
  • The Italian Data Protection Authority is awaiting additional clarification from Google Inc. after opening a formal inquiry proceeding at the end of May and will shortly assess the relevant findings to establish possible enforcement measures, including possible sanctions, under the Italian data protection law.

The Kiobel Judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Future of Human Rights

In the aftermath of the Kiobel judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court a number of questions related to the access to justice in defence of human rights remain unanswered. The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg has  decided to address the topic in a one-day seminar gathering academic, experts  and professionals from Europe (Professors B. Hess, H. Muir Watt, C. Kessedjian, N. Jägers, P. Kinsch, Dr. C. Feinaeugle and A. Sessler) as well as from the U.S. (Professors D. Stewart and D.T. Childress III). We also expect the attendance of representatives of other stakeholders, such as NGOs.

The event will take place in Luxembourg on July, 4th; click here to see the program.

Venue: Max Planck Institute (4 Alphonse Weicker, L 2721). Language: English.

To register just send an email to

Call for Papers: ASIL-ESIL-Rechtskulturen Workshop on International Legal Theory

Politics and Principle in International Legal Theory

Call for Papers

On November 14–15, 2013, the University of Michigan Law School will host the Second Annual ASIL–ESIL–Rechtskulturen Workshop on International Legal Theory. It is a collaboration between Michigan Law School, the Interest Groups on International Legal Theory of the American and European Societies of International Law, and the Rechtskulturen Program, an initiative of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin at Humboldt University Law School. The principal aim of this collaboration is to facilitate frank discussion among legal scholars from diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the fundamental theoretical questions that confront the discipline today.

American and European legal scholars often approach international legal theory with different assumptions about the relationship between law and politics, as well as the relationship between normative theory and positive jurisprudence. Positivist, realist, natural-law, critical, feminist, TWAIL and policy-oriented approaches are present in both American and European international legal scholarship, yet the prevalence and salience of these approaches for international lawyers on either side of the Atlantic differ. In an effort to both better understand and move beyond these regional dynamics, workshop participants will discuss the role of “politics” and “principle” in international legal discourse from a variety of perspectives. Examples of topics that might be relevant include:

  • How should scholars and practitioners of international law negotiate the competing demands of “politics” and “principle”? How do they actually negotiate such demands?
  • What role does politics (or the study of international relations) play in law and international legal scholarship? What role should it play?
  • How does law inform politics (or the study of international relations)?  What role should law play?
  • What role remains for principle(s) in an era of post-modern value-relativism and global legal pluralism?

We anticipate that the workshop will generate new perspectives on these enduring theoretical questions, as well as intensify transatlantic engagement on emerging debates within international legal theory. Addressing a variety of topics in constructive confrontations beyond comparison, we will seek to overcome transatlantic divides and to open new avenues in global international law scholarship.

Selection Procedure and Workshop Organization

Interested participants should submit an abstract (800 words maximum) summarizing the ideas they propose to develop for presentation at the workshop. Submissions of all proposals that engage the workshop’s theme are encouraged. Papers that have been accepted for publication prior to the workshop are in principle eligible for consideration, provided that they will not appear in print before the workshop. Papers will be chosen for presentation by peer review, taking into account not only the need for a balance of topics and viewpoints, but also for geographic diversity among the participants.

Although discussants will be assigned to introduce the papers at the workshop, all participants will be expected to read all of the contributions in advance and come prepared to contribute to the discussion. The organizers hope that the event will serve as a showcase for innovative research on international legal theory, while at the same time strengthening personal and professional ties between scholars on either side of the Atlantic, and beyond.

Abstract submissions should be sent to by July 21, 2013. Successful applicants will be notified by August 12, 2013. Papers must be fully drafted and ready for circulation by October 14, 2013. Applicants are strongly encouraged to assess all possible options with regard to receiving funding from the institutions with which they are affiliated. If funding cannot be obtained in this way, they should indicate as part of their submission whether they will require financial assistance to cover the costs of travel and accommodation for the event.

Questions regarding the workshop may be directed to:

Evan Criddle                

Jörg Kammerhofer      

Alexandra Kemmerer 

Julian Davis Mortenson

Kristina Daugirdas      

Kleinschmidt on the European Certificate of Succession

Jens Kleinschmidt (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and PIL, Hamburg) has Optionales Erbrecht: Das Europäische Nachlasszeugnis als Herausforderung an das Kollisionsrecht (The European Certificate of Succession: An Optional Instrument as a Challenge for Private International Law) posted on SSRN.

The legal systems of the EU Member States have developed varying instruments that enable an heir or legatee to prove his position and protect third parties dealing with the holder of such an instrument (“certificates of succession”). However, these instruments are often of little use when presented abroad. In cases where the estate is located in more than one country, heirs or legatees are therefore required to apply for several national certificates. This will cost them time and money. The EU Succession Regulation (Reg. 650/2012) tackles this unsatisfying situation in two ways. On the one hand, Art. 59 on the “acceptance” of authentic instruments may promote the circulation of national certificates of succession. Under this approach, however, national certificates retain the effects attributed to them by their country of origin. On the other hand, therefore, Arts. 62 ff. create a supranational European Certificate of Succession (ECS) which may be applied for if heirs or legatees of a legatum per vindicationem need to invoke their status or exercise their rights in another Member State. The ECS does not replace the national systems but rather constitutes an optional instrument that may be applied for in lieu of a national certificate. In order to fulfil its purpose, the content of the ECS must be based on uniform private international law rules. Here, despite the harmonization efforts of the Regulation, three areas present particular challenges: (i) the relationship with conflicts rules for matrimonial property, (ii) dealing with legal institutes unknown to the legal system of the Member State where the ECS is presented, and (iii) determining the law applicable to incidental questions. Uniform interpretation and uniform characterization can only be safeguarded by the ECJ, to which, however, not all national authorities competent for issuing an ECS may refer their questions for a preliminary ruling. The ECS is based on a set of uniform rules on competence and procedure that respect the autonomy of the Member States and at the same time ensure that the ECS may perform its tasks. The question remains whether the ECS will be regarded as an attractive option compared to the existing national certificates. The far-reaching, uniform effects of the ECS and the advantages brought about by standardization regarding language and content speak in favour of the ECS. However, in certain areas a national certificate may afford a more comprehensive protection. Moreover, the implementation of the ECS into practice will have to allay the fear that its issuance may be excessively cumbersome.

This pre-print version is published in this Research Paper Series with the permission of the rights owner, Mohr Siebeck. The publisher’s version of the article will be available for download as of October 2014. Full-text Rabel Journal articles are available via pay-per-view or subscription at IngentaConnect, a provider of digital journals on the Internet.

Note: Downloadable document is in German.

The paper is forthcoming in the Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law (RabelsZ).

ELI – UNIDROIT Joint Project on Civil Procedure

The European Law Institute has announced its intention to explore whether to launch a joint project with UNIDROIT on European civil procedure building on the ALI – UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure.

On 23 May, ELI representatives John Sorabji, Matthias Storme, Remo Caponi and Christiane Wendehorst attended a meeting in Rome kindly hosted by UNIDROIT.

The meeting focused on the development of a joint project between the ELI and UNIDROIT in cooperation with the American Law Institute (ALI) on the topic of European Civil Procedure.

This meeting enabled various parties of this joint venture to dicuss the scope and aims of the project, ahead of a workshop to be held on 18-19 October where ALI representatives will also be present.

The productive meeting resulted in a draft agenda for October‘s workshop. It is hoped that the two day event, which will feature a public conference and an expert seminar, will see plans and targets officially established.

The seminar on 19 October will only be open to those invited, but any ELI Fellows who are interested in this field should register their interest with the Secretariat, who will pass this information on to the organisers.

South African Constitutional Court rules on taking of evidence

It is not every day that a Constitutional Court rules on a matter of evidence. The case Tulip Diamonds FZE v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others concerned the taking of evidence in South Africa for a criminal investigation in Belgium. It was on a matter of common interest in South Africa and Belgium: diamonds. In the course of a criminal investigation in Belgium, the authorities issued a letter of request for evidence in South Africa. This concerned evidence that had to be produced by Brinks Southern Africa, established in South Africa. This company was not involved in the suspected criminal activities, but transported diamonds for Tulip from Angola and Congo to the United Arab Emirates. Tulip was the intermediary of Omega, the Belgian company who allegedly imported the diamonds under false certificates to conceal their real value and therefore the company’s taxable profit. The documents that the Belgian authorities sought to be transferred concerned invoices by Brinks Southern Africa to Tulip.

The request was approved by the Minister of Justice and given to a magistrate to carry out. The magistrate issued a subpoena to an employee at Brinks. Before she could submit the documents, Tulip got wind of the request. After negotiations and a temporary interdict by the High Court for Brinks not to transfer the documents, Tulip approached the court for a review of the approving of the request. The issue then arose whether Tulip had standing under the Constitution or under common law to bring these proceedings.

Some of the issues in the case concern criminal procedure law, but the matter of standing is also of interest for civil cases, to my mind.

The judgment (issued on 13 June 2013) is available on the website of the Constitutional Court and on the Legalbrief site.

UK Supreme Court Rules on Anti Suit Injunctions

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled in Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (Appellant) v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (Respondent) that English courts have jurisdiction to injunct the commencement or continuation of legal proceedings brought in a foreign jurisdiction outside the Brussels Regulation/Lugano regime where no arbitral proceedings have been commenced or are proposed.

The Court issued the following Press Summary.


The appellant is the owner of a hydroelectric power plant in Kazakhstan. The respondent is the current operator of that plant. The concession agreement between the parties contains a clause providing that any disputes arising out of, or connected with, the concession agreement are to be arbitrated in London under International Chamber of Commerce Rules. For the purposes of this appeal the parties are agreed that the arbitration clause is governed by English law. The rest of the concession agreement is governed by Kazakh law.

Relations between the owners and holders of the concession have often been strained. In 2004 the Republic of Kazakhstan, as the previous owner and grantor of the concession, obtained a ruling from the Kazakh Supreme Court that the arbitration clause was invalid. In 2009 the appellant, as the current owner and grantor of the concession, brought court proceedings against the respondent in Kazakhstan seeking information concerning concession assets. The respondent’s application to stay those proceedings under the contractual arbitration clause was dismissed on the basis that the Kazakh Supreme Court had annulled the arbitration clause by its 2004 decision.

Shortly thereafter the respondent issued proceedings in England seeking (a) a declaration that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable and (b) an anti-suit injunction restraining the appellant from continuing with the Kazakh proceedings. An interim injunction was granted by the English Commercial Court and the appellant subsequently withdrew the request for information which was the subject of the Kazakh proceedings. However, the respondent remained concerned that the appellant would seek to bring further court proceedings in Kazakhstan in breach of the contractual agreement that such disputes should be subject to arbitration in London. As a result the respondent continued with the proceedings. The English Commercial Court found that they were not bound to follow the Kazakh court’s conclusions in relation to an arbitration clause governed by English law and refused to do so. The Commercial Court duly granted both the declaratory and final injunctive relief sought.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on the grounds that English courts have no jurisdiction to injunct the commencement or continuation of legal proceedings brought in a foreign jurisdiction outside the Brussels Regulation/Lugano regime where no arbitral proceedings have been commenced or are proposed.


The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. The English courts have a long-standing and well-recognised jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings brought in violation of an arbitration agreement, even where no arbitration is on foot or in contemplation. Nothing in the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) has removed this power from the courts. The judgment of the court is given by Lord Mance.


  • An arbitration agreement gives rise to a ‘negative obligation’ whereby both parties expressly or impliedly promise to refrain from commencing proceedings in any forum other than the forum specified in the arbitration agreement. This negative promise not to commence proceedings in another forum is as important as the positive agreement on forum [21-26].
  • Independently of the 1996 Act the English courts have a general inherent power to declare rights and a well-recognised power to enforce the negative aspect of an arbitration agreement by injuncting foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement even where arbitral proceedings are not on foot or in contemplation [19-23].
  • There is nothing in the 1996 Act which removes this power from the courts; where no arbitral proceedings are on foot or in prospect the 1996 Act neither limits the scope nor qualifies the use of the general power contained in section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”) to injunct foreign proceedings begun or threatened in breach of an arbitration agreement [55]. To preclude the power of the courts to order such relief would have required express parliamentary provision to this effect [56].
  • The 1996 Act does not set out a comprehensive set of rules for the determination of all jurisdictional questions. Sections 30, 32, 44 and 72 of the 1996 Act only apply in circumstances where the arbitral proceedings are on foot or in contemplation; accordingly they have no bearing on whether the court may order injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act where no arbitration is on foot or in contemplation [40].
  • The grant of injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act in such circumstances does not constitute an “intervention” as defined in section 1(c) of the 1996 Act; section 1(c) is only concerned with court intervention in the arbitral process [41].
  • The reference in section 44(2)(e) of the 1996 Act to the power of the court to grant an interim injunction “for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings” was not intended to exclude or duplicate the court’s general power to grant injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act [48].
  • Service out of the jurisdiction may be affected under Civil Procedure Rule 62.2 which provides for service out where an arbitration claim affects arbitration proceedings or an arbitration agreement; this provision is wide enough to embrace a claim under section 37 to restrain foreign proceedings brought or continued in breach of the negative aspect of an arbitration agreement [49].

H/T: Dominic Pellew