COMPANY 1 V COMPANY 2 AND ANOTHER

[2017] EWHC 2319 (QB), Queen's Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, His Honour Judge Saffmann, 20 September 2017

Arbitration - Interim relief - Order preserving evidence or assets - Whether matter urgent - Whether court should intervene where arbitration had its seat in Switzerland - Arbitration Act 1996, sections 2(3) and 44(3)

C1 (in the British Virgin Islands) and C2 (in Cyprus) were parties to a joint venture, C3, for the promotion, marketing and sale of jet aircraft. C1 and C2 had equal shares in C3. Mr A, the controller of C2, was appointed chief executive officer. All profits were to be distributed by way of dividend equally to C1 and C2, although where five or fewer transactions were carried out by C2 in its allocated territory, C3 would pay the entirety of the net income to C2, but where there were six or more transactions C3 would pay an average of the commission earned multiplied by five. All disputes arising out of or in connection with the joint venture agreement were to be resolved by arbitration in Zurich. Disputes arose and C2 asserted that it was owed about US$10 million by C3 but that C1 would not release the money. C1 claimed that Mr A had established competing companies and that commission had been withheld from C3. On 9 June 2017 C1 commenced arbitration in Switzerland against C2 and Mr A. On 12 June 2017 C2 commenced its own arbitration in Switzerland against C1, seeking payment of the US$10 million that it was allegedly owed. No arbitrators had been appointed. C2 also obtained an interim order from the courts of the British Virgin Islands preventing C1 from removing any funds from C3's account. In the present case C1 sought a freezing order over assets worldwide, and also sought disclosure of bank accounts.