Arbitration Law Monthly

The question in Premier Cruises Ltd v DLA Piper Rus Ltd and Another [2021] EWHC 151 (Comm); [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511 was whether the disputed existence of a valid arbitration agreement was a matter for the court or the tribunal. David Edwards QC applied the now accepted English approach that the court would determine the question on the evidence before it, even though agreement if valid would have been governed by Russian law.

In Vale SA and Others v Steinmetz and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 1087 the Court of Appeal confirmed the long-standing principle that an arbitration award between A and B cannot affect a separate claim that A might have against a third party, C, unless C is in some way a privy of B.

The question in Axis Corporate Capital UK Ltd v Absa Group Ltd [2021] EWHC 225 (Comm); [2021] Lloyd’s Rep IR 195 was whether a group of admittedly poorly drafted choice of law and jurisdiction clauses in a tower of reinsurance agreements operated to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts such as to justify the grant of anti-suit relief to restrain the reinsured from proceeding in the South African courts.

In Hulley Enterprises Ltd and Others v The Russian Federation [2021] EWHC 894 (Comm); [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 617 Henshaw J discussed the jurisdiction of the court to maintain a stay of enforcement proceedings where there was a pending challenge to the award in the curial courts and the main defence of the award debtor was that of sovereign immunity.