EXCALIBUR VENTURES LLC V TEXAS KEYSTONE INC

[2011] EWHC 1624 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Gloster, 28 June 2011

Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Anti-arbitration injunction - Claimant commencing arbitration in New York and judicial proceedings in England - Dispute as to parties to arbitration clause - Whether defendant entitled to anti-arbitration injunction - Whether claimant entitled to stay of its own English proceedings - Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37 - Brussels Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, article 2

Excalibur held itself out as offering advisory, investment procurement and public relations services in the energy sector. On 16 February 2006 Excalibur entered into a Collaboration Agreement with TKI, whose business was the acquisition, exploration, development and production of natural gas and oil resources. It was controlled by the Kozel family, which also controlled three other unrelated companies (the Gulf defendants). The Collaboration Agreement provided for arbitration in New York. The parties negotiated with the Kurdistan government for oil concessions, but the government chose not to deal with either of them because they did not meet the qualifications required by the law, and instead entered into a contract with one of the Gulf defendants. In December 2010 Excalibur commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court against TKI and the Gulf Defendants, alleging breaches of the Collaboration Agreement and fraudulent breaches of duty. On the same day Excalibur commenced arbitration against TKI and the Gulf defendants in New York. On 25 March 2011 the ICC Court ruled that there was a prima facie case that the Gulf defendants were parties to the arbitration clause and that the arbitration should proceed. The Gulf defendants sought an anti-arbitration injunction in the English court, and Excalibur sought a stay of its own English proceedings. Gloster J granted the injunction and refused the stay.