Citation: CILL 3328; [2013] All ER (D) 193 (Feb); [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep 218; [2013] 1 CLC 456; [2013] Bus LR D54
Nature of case: KCM had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against U&M in Zambia, the locale of the project. U&M responded with an ex parte interim anti suit injunction in the Commercial Court.
The parties’ agreement provided for LCIA arbitration. The court held that, notwithstanding some confusing drafting in the contract, the seat of the arbitration was London. The issue arose as to whether in those circumstances KCM had been entitled to bring its claim for an injunction in Zambia, or whether in circumstances where the seat of the arbitration was London, it was restricted to either arbitration proceedings or (insofar as court proceedings such as for an interim injunction under section 44 were legitimate), court proceedings in London. Held: on the basis of the LCIA rules the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of any appropriate court for the purposes of interim protective measures. On that basis the anti-suit injunction obtained by U&M was discharged.
