Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
ENFORCING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND INTERIM RELIEF
Channel Tunnel Group v. Balfour Beatty
Introduction
In Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd.,1 the defendants, who were working as contractors for the plaintiffs on the Channel tunnel project, informed the plaintiffs that, unless certain conditions were met, they would suspend all work relating to the tunnel’s cooling system. Clause 67 of the contract provided for a two-stage dispute-resolution procedure: disputes were initially to be referred to a panel of three persons (acting as independent experts, but not as arbitrators); if the panel failed to make a decision within a specified period or if either party was dissatisfied with the panel’s decision, the dispute could be referred to arbitration in Belgium. The plaintiffs attempted to by-pass this mechanism by applying to the High Court for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from suspending the work. The defendants, relying on cl. 67, applied for a stay of proceedings.
Although the House of Lords dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal, there are significant differences between the reasoning adopted by the House and the Court of Appeal.2 The House of Lords’ decision sheds light not only on a number of specific aspects of the law relating to arbitration, but also on the extent to which The Siskina
3 limits the court’s jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 37(1).
1. [1993] A.C. 334; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 291.
2. [1992] Q.B. 656; Hill, “The Jurisdiction of the Courts to Grant Interim Measures in Support of Arbitration Proceedings” [1992] LMCLQ 310.
3. Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v. Distos C.N.S.A. (The Siskina) [1979] A.C. 210.
465