Key Facts
- •Application to restore an application determined on 20 December 2022 and subsequently withdrawn.
- •Application for an extension of time to appeal the December 2022 decision.
- •Original application concerned a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in aid of arbitration proceedings.
- •Jurisdictional issue arose under s.44(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 regarding the court's power to determine the WFO application without arbitral tribunal permission.
- •Claimants initially agreed to withdraw the judgment and seek arbitral tribunal permission, then filed applications to restore and extend time to appeal.
- •Dispute centers on the interpretation of the arbitration agreement (clause 15.1) and LCIA rules (Article 23.5) concerning the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief.
Legal Principles
Court's jurisdiction to extend time for filing a notice of appeal under CPR Rule 52.12(2)(a).
CPR Rule 52.12(2)(a)
Section 44(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 concerning the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief in arbitration proceedings.
Arbitration Act 1996, s.44(4)
LCIA Rules Article 23.5 regarding parties' agreement not to apply to state courts for relief regarding the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction.
LCIA Rules, Article 23.5
Interpretation of arbitration agreements, specifically the meaning of "any competent judicial authority" in clause 15.1(b) of the arbitration agreement.
Clause 15.1(b) of the arbitration agreement
Outcomes
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.
No application for extension was made at the hearing, and the hearing was not adjourned. CPR Rule 52.12(2)(a) does not allow for a later application.
Application to restore the application to continue or discharge the WFO will proceed to a full hearing.
Serious jurisdictional issues under the arbitration agreement and LCIA rules need to be determined. The court retains jurisdiction to decide these issues of construction despite some doubts about the court's jurisdiction.