## Facts

- Elektrim S.A. (a Polish company) and Vivendi entities were involved in transactions concerning control and share interests in Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z.o.o. (PTC), a Polish mobile telecommunications company.
- A key governing contract, the Third Investment Agreement (TIA) (Sept. 2001), contained an LCIA arbitration clause seated in London.
- In Aug. 2003, Vivendi Universal S.A. and Vivendi Telecom International S.A. commenced an LCIA arbitration against Elektrim and related entities under the TIA.
- The LCIA tribunal issued a partial award in May 2006; Elektrim’s subsequent court challenge under Arbitration Act 1996 § 68 (including requests for time extension and relief premised on alleged fraud/public policy) was dismissed, leaving the LCIA arbitration to continue.
- After settlement efforts failed, Vivendi and others began a second arbitration in Apr. 2006 before the ICC in Geneva, asserted to arise from a later, disputed “Settlement Agreement” framework with different governing law/seat features and broader party involvement.
- Elektrim requested that the LCIA tribunal stay the London proceedings pending the ICC arbitration; the tribunal refused.
- Elektrim then sought a final injunction under Supreme Court Act 1981 § 37 restraining the defendants from continuing the LCIA arbitration until the ICC arbitration was finally determined.

## Issues

1. Whether continuation of the LCIA arbitration infringed or threatened a legal or equitable right of Elektrim, or was “vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable,” such that injunctive relief was justified.
2. How the High Court’s injunctive jurisdiction under Supreme Court Act 1981 § 37 operates in light of the Arbitration Act 1996’s scheme of limited court intervention.
3. If jurisdiction existed, whether the court should, as a matter of discretion, restrain the LCIA arbitration pending the ICC arbitration.

## Decision

- The Commercial Court (Aikens J) dismissed the application for a final anti-arbitration injunction.
- Elektrim failed to show an infringed or threatened legal/equitable right, or that the LCIA arbitration’s continuation met the high standard of being vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable.
- Section 37 could not be used to circumvent the Arbitration Act 1996’s framework where a competent tribunal was proceeding under an agreed arbitration clause and had already addressed case-management requests such as a stay.
- In any event, discretionary considerations weighed against interference because the LCIA arbitration was advanced and an injunction would disrupt a valid arbitral process without clear justification.

## Legal Principles

- The High Court’s power to grant injunctions under Supreme Court Act 1981 § 37 remains available but must be exercised consistently with the Arbitration Act 1996’s policy of limited judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings.
- Anti-arbitration injunctions are exceptional; they generally require a clear showing of abuse, unconscionable conduct, or interference with a recognized legal right (not merely parallel proceedings or tactical disadvantage).
- The existence of overlapping or concurrent arbitrations does not, without more, create a right to have one arbitration stayed or restrained.
- Courts should be slow to override an arbitral tribunal’s procedural and jurisdictional determinations, particularly where the Arbitration Act provides specific, limited routes for court supervision or challenge.

## Conclusion

The court refused to restrain the London-seated LCIA arbitration pending the outcome of related ICC proceedings, holding that section 37 injunctive relief cannot be used to bypass the Arbitration Act 1996’s non-intervention scheme and that parallel arbitrations, without clear abuse or rights infringement, do not justify an anti-arbitration injunction.


Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A., [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm) (Eng.)