What is the best way to protect the authority of international commercial arbitrations? Is a party obliged to "play defence" and not ask the courts of the seat of the arbitration to interfere until after arbitration proceedings are commenced? Or can a party "play offense" and ask those courts to take jurisdiction before any arbitration proceedings begin? This is the issue which the UK Court of Appeal addressed in AES-Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC.
Clearly, if the courts of countries which are not the seat of the arbitration "play offence" and issue conflicting declarations and injunctions, it would play havoc with the arbitration regime. There must be one and only one court system which exercises this supervisory "sooner or later" jurisdiction, and that is the court system of the seat of the arbitration. For those who need the pro-active internention of that court system to protect an arbitral regime, the Kamenogorsk decision is a powerful pronouncement.
internation commercial arbitration, declaratory relief, jurisdiction of the court
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Thomas Heintzman, Arbitration Place | Attorney Advertising