Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2011

International Arbitration: You Can't Have Your Court And Eat It

In Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others, the claimant had simultaneously commenced an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in New York and substantive Commercial Court proceedings in London over very similar claims, against the same defendants.

GlobalLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Ben Holland
Ben Holland
Guy Pendell
Guy Pendell

In Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others, the claimant had simultaneously commenced an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in New York and substantive Commercial Court proceedings in London over very similar claims, against the same defendants. Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitration agreement between the claimant and those parties was valid. The Commercial Court issued an injunction preventing the claimant from pursuing the arbitration in New York against those parties, on the basis that there was a strong arguable case that they never agreed to the arbitration agreement.
 
Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others provides an interesting example of a claimant commencing parallel court and arbitration proceedings and casts serious doubts as to the merit of such a procedural tactic in some circumstances. It is also a rare example of the Commercial Court intervening in an arbitration

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from