SQD v QYP
[2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm)
G v R
22 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm)
High Court
A company tried to stop an arbitration in France by asking an English court to prevent it. The English court said no because the rules of the French arbitration are decided by French law, not English law, and that a fair hearing could still happen in France even without the special court order the company wanted.
Key Facts
- •Claim for final anti-suit relief.
- •Underlying contract governed by English law (Clause 11 of the bonds).
- •Arbitration agreement in the contract stipulates arbitration in Paris under ICC rules (Clause 12 of the bonds).
- •Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court.
- •Jurisdictional gateway relied upon: claim in respect of a contract governed by English law.
- •Dispute centers on whether English law governs the arbitration agreement.
- •French law, as the law of the seat of arbitration, would apply substantive rules of international arbitration, not necessarily the parties' choice of English law.
- •Claimant argued England is the proper forum due to the availability of anti-suit injunctions, which are not available in France.
Legal Principles
Choice of law clauses are construed according to the principles in *Enka v Chubb* [2021] WLR 4117.
Enka v Chubb [2021] WLR 4117
Severability of arbitration agreements does not automatically negate the application of the governing law of the main contract to the arbitration agreement.
Enka v Chubb [2021] WLR 4117
The inference that a choice of governing law for the contract applies to the arbitration agreement can be negated if the law of the seat indicates that the arbitration agreement is governed by that country's law.
Enka v Chubb [2021] WLR 4117
In determining the proper forum, the court considers where the case may be more suitably tried in the interests of all parties and the ends of justice (*Spiliada* principles).
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd
The English court's jurisdiction to grant anti-suit relief stems from section 37 of the Senior Courts Act.
Senior Courts Act
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that English law does not govern the arbitration agreement because French law (the law of the seat of arbitration) would apply its own substantive rules of international arbitration. Further, the court determined that England was not the proper forum for the anti-suit injunction, as substantial justice could be done in the French arbitration, despite the unavailability of anti-suit relief in France.