No jurisdiction to commence arbitration
Ruby Roz Agricol LLP v The Republic of Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 439 (Comm)
Under the Arbitration Act, s 67, the Court held that the arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to commence arbitration against the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Court considers whether MasterCard fees breach competition law
Asda Stores Ltd & Ors v MasterCard Incorporated & Ors [2017] EWHC 93 (Comm)
Retailers alleged that the multilateral interchange fees set by MasterCard and levied on each MasterCard transaction were in breach of competition law.
Unless order necessary and proportionate due to claimants’ previous disregard for disclosure orders and breach of undertakings
ORB Arl & Ors v Ruhan & Ors [2016] EWHC 850 (Comm)
The court was asked to determine applications where a breach of an agreement by the defendant regarding the sale of company assets was alleged, along with a counterclaim of misappropriation. Held: Imposing an unless order on the claimant was necessary and proportionate, given the claimants previous disregard for disclosure orders and breach of undertakings.
Norwich Pharmacal order discharged where claimants had not made full and frank disclosure
ORB A.R.L. & Ors v Fiddler & Anor [2016] EWHC 361 (Comm)
The defendant challenged the issuing of a Norwich Pharmacal order against him, on the grounds that the claimants had failed to make full and frank disclosure and were pursuing an illegitimate purpose in obtaining the order, as their intention was to gather evidence which would damage the credibility of another individual, R, in the main litigation proceedings, rather than to gain redress for any wrongdoing alleged. Held: The order was discharged.
Claims against the applicants were within the Lugano Convention
Tchenguiz & Ors v Grant Thornton UK LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 1864 (Comm)
Application brought by Kaupthing Bank and Mr Jóhannsson (JJ), seeking dismissal or a stay of proceedings brought against them. The proceedings brought against Kaupthing Bank were in breach of a prohibition on legal action against them contained in Icelandic Bankruptcy Act 1991, art 116. However the claims against both claimants were within the Lugano Convention and not excluded by art 1(2)(b) because neither of the claims directly derived from Kaupthing’s winding-up proceedings.