Petrochemical Logistics Ltd & Anor v PSB Alpha AG & Anor

For an interim injunction in support of arbitration, the applicant must establish urgency, a good arguable case, and a real risk of dissipation. The injunction must have assets on which it can operate. A contractual or possessory interest is insufficient where the order is sought against assets registered in the name of an independent third party.

Where the relevant arbitration is seated abroad and the assets are outside England, the court must identify a sufficiently strong connection with England and Wales. English nationality alone is insufficient where the respondent is neither domiciled nor resident in England. The existence of more severe English sanctions does not, by itself, justify intervention where relief is available from the foreign court.

The claimants sought continuation of a freezing injunction granted ex parte under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The injunction restrained dealings with shares and assets of Alpha Terminals BV and with bearer share certificates in PSB Alpha AG.

The defendants applied to set aside the injunction and permission for service by email. The court considered separately whether there was a real risk of dissipation concerning the PSB Alpha shares and the Alpha Terminals shares and assets, whether there was a sufficient connection with England for relief concerning foreign assets, and whether the statutory urgency requirement was satisfied.

1. The application to continue the injunction was refused in respect of both the bearer shares in PSB Alpha AG and the shares and assets of Alpha Terminals BV.

2. Under sections 44(1), 44(3) and 44(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the court had power to grant interim relief in support of the unconstituted arbitrations, but the claimants still had to establish urgency and that the order was necessary to preserve assets.

3. As to the PSB Alpha bearer shares, the conduct of Mr Ghertsos in agreeing to transfer the shares but failing to deliver them established a good arguable case of a risk of dissipation. However, the relevant arbitration was seated in Switzerland. The connection with England was insufficient: Mr Ghertsos was neither domiciled nor resident here, the November SPA was governed by Swiss law, and the alleged relationship between the two share purchase agreements was not established by the evidence.

4. The court applied the principle that foreign-asset relief requires a sufficiently strong jurisdictional connection and careful regard to comity. The availability of sanctions from the Swiss courts, and the possibility of overlapping orders, meant that the balance did not favour continuation of the English injunction.

5. As to the Alpha Terminals shares and assets, the shares were registered in the name of AT Holdings, an independent third party. There were therefore no grounds for believing that the shares were assets of the defendants on which the injunction could bite. In any event, the evidence did not establish a good arguable case of dissipation by PSB Alpha or Mr Ghertsos.

6. The court further observed that, had it been necessary to decide the issue, the evidence would not have established that an injunction was necessary to preserve the Alpha Terminals shares or underlying assets. It was unnecessary to decide the objection to service by email.