In September 2019, the Moscow court agreed to hear Russia`s request. Enka then lodged an appeal with the London Commercial Court and requested a statement that Chubb Russia was bound by the Arbitration Agreement under Article 50.1 of the Treaty and an injunction that prevented Chubb Russia from pursuing the appeal in the Moscow courts. However, the majority reaffirmed the principle of disability set out in Sulamerica/Enesa Engenharia  EWCA Civ 638, according to which the selection of an arbitration seat can be considered a tacit decision of the existing legislation of the arbitration agreement in circumstances where the arbitration agreement would be invalid or unenforceable under the law applicable to the underlying contract (point 109). Similarly, the law of the arbitral tribunal may apply to the arbitration agreement if there is a provision in the seat law which states that, when an arbitration is subject to that right, arbitration is also dealt with under the law of that country (point 170 (vi) above). The anti-costume injunction and forum (not) agrees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, noting that “a promise of conciliation is also a promise not to argue.” A recognized feature of the supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts is the granting of motions of omission to deter parties from violating their obligations under the arbitration agreement (. B, for example, to prevent them from taking up a dispute or pursuing litigation in another jurisdiction). In accordance with the Court of Appeal, the Court unanimously decided that it does not matter whether the arbitration agreement to that effect is governed by English law – it is essential that the parties have decided to withdraw their arbitration in England. Reflections on (non-) convenian or comity forums do not matter.
Background. In 2012, the respondent (“Enka”) entered into a subcontract with CJSC Energoproekt for the construction of the Berezovskaya power plant in Russia (the “contract”). The dispute settlement clause of the treaty provided for arbitration proceedings under ICC rules in London, but there was no legal clause. In 2014, CJSC Energoproekt transferred its contractual rights to the plant`s owner, PJSC Unipro. A major fire caused damage to the Berezovskaya plant in February 2016. PJSC Unipro claimed approximately US$400 million from its insurer, the complainant (“Chubb Russia”), which in turn sold the rights of PJSC Unipro over the rights under the contract. Chubb Russia launched a Russian legal case against Enka in 2019, claiming that the fire was caused by defects in Enka`s work. In the circumstances in which the parties have chosen different systems for the material right of their contractual relationship and the right to cure the seat of arbitration, does the question arise as to which of these two systems governs the arbitration agreement? There are other consequences. In the indistingoful Fiona Trust, the House of Lords held that the interpretation of an arbitration agreement should be interpreted as having the parties probably intend to dismiss all disputes arising from the same tribunal20.20 This presumption of a “one-stop shop” means that the courts and courts in general do not have to worry about linguistic differences and may conclude that the parties intend to fight.
results from their relationship (including. B unauthorized claims) determined by the same dispute resolution process.