Nigerian Agrip Exploitation Limited v GEC Petroleum Development Company Limited

Where parties agree to arbitration with London as the seat, challenges to an interim or final award fall within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts. That includes proceedings seeking to set aside, invalidate or otherwise interfere with an award, even where the challenge is brought in the courts of another country.

The court may grant final anti-suit relief where a party commences or continues foreign proceedings in breach of the arbitration agreement and cannot show good or strong reason for doing so. Relief may include a mandatory injunction requiring discontinuance, a continuing prohibitory injunction, and declarations as to the English court’s exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. The injunction should preserve the right to resist enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention.

The claimant and defendant entered into commercial agreements containing ICC arbitration clauses with London as the seat. After an arbitration began, the defendant commenced proceedings in Nigeria seeking to restrain the arbitration and later commenced fresh Nigerian proceedings seeking to set aside and prevent recognition of the final award.

Earlier interim anti-suit injunctions had been granted by HHJ Pelling KC, Butcher J and Cockerill J. The defendant did not participate in the final hearing. The issues were whether the Nigerian proceedings breached the arbitration agreements and existing orders, whether any good or strong reason justified permitting them, and what final relief should be granted.

1. Final relief granted. The continued prosecution of the 2022 Nigerian proceedings plainly breached the interim injunction made by Cockerill J and the earlier injunction made by Butcher J. The defendant had not advanced any good or strong reason for engaging in the foreign proceedings.
2. The wording of the earlier injunction, referring to disputes arising out of or connected with the three commercial agreements, was capable of covering proceedings challenging the final award. Its context made clear that proceedings concerning the arbitration itself had to be brought either in the arbitral process or before the courts of England and Wales under the Arbitration Act 1996 or section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
3. Following C v D [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367, and the analysis adopted from A v B [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237, agreement to an arbitral seat entails agreement that challenges to an award are to be made only in the courts of that seat. The position is particularly strong after an award has been issued and the foreign proceedings seek to invalidate it.
4. The court approved the relevant proposition in Enka v Chubb [2020] 1 WLR 4417, while noting that the point had not arisen for decision there. Proceedings seeking to set aside an award resulting from a properly constituted London arbitration therefore fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the English supervisory court.
5. The order included declarations, a mandatory injunction requiring immediate discontinuance of the Nigerian proceedings, and a continuing prohibitory injunction against further proceedings outside arbitration or the English courts. The injunction expressly preserved the defendant’s ability to resist enforcement or recognition under Article V of the New York Convention.
6. Costs were awarded to the claimant on the indemnity basis.

The judgment records earlier interim relief granted in the same proceedings by HHJ Pelling KC, Butcher J and Cockerill J. This was the final trial hearing at first instance.