Abstract

21 November 2007 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 2729 [2007] ArbLR 37 Arbitration proceedings--Anti-arbitration injunction--Court setting aside final award of tribunal but deciding that first interim award by the tribunal not a nullity--Party seeking to continue the arbitration on the basis of the first interim award--Whether court's earlier decision on challenge of final award determined issues of substantive jurisdiction (yes)--Whether continuation of proceedings vexatious and oppressive (yes)--Whether to restrain arbitral proceedings (yes)--Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37(1) Supervisory court's decision as to substantive jurisdiction final Istil was a steel trader, whose predecessor, Metalsrussia, bought steel from the State Foreign Trade Company Kazakhstan Sauda and Oltex. Istil contended that the two sellers acted as agents for Karmet, a Kazakh State enterprise that owned and operated the steel mill. Karmet fell into financial difficulty. Kazakhstan insisted on advance delivery of raw materials from Istil's predecessor, Metalsrussia, and subsequently `invalidated' the contracts. Kazakhstan took the position that the contracts had been concluded by Sauda and Oltex as principals and on that basis no payment would be made by Kazakhstan. Metalsrussia commenced proceedings in Paris against Kazakhstan, which contested jurisdiction on the ground that it was not a party to the