The Abrey family had a farming partnership, involving three brothers and their sons. In April 2024, DD issued proceedings against the claimant (T) and T’s brother seeking a dissolution of the partnership between them. The dissolution claim was referred to arbitration by consent. T was subsequently removed as a director of a company which was closely connected to the partnership. T then brought a new claim against DD and sought an interim order to restrain DD from excluding him in the management of the business of the partnership. DD then applied, under AA, s.9, to stay T’s claim, and contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the application for or grant the interim injunction.

Decision: The court had jurisdiction to hear the application for an interim injunction. Interim injunction granted.

Held: (1) The claimant was entitled to rely either on the court’s ordinary powers to grant an interim injunction, or on s.44 (providing court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings) on the basis that the claim was subject to arbitration. The court had jurisdiction in either case to grant interim relief, leaving the question whether the claim was to be determined in arbitration to be decided later.

(2) Even if the claim was otherwise liable to be stayed due to the existence of a relevant arbitration agreement, the exceptions in s.44(2)(e) and s.44(3) would apply, since the case was one of urgency.

(3) An interim injunction would be granted applying the American Cyanamid test.2

Comment: The court is empowered to grant urgent relief in support of arbitration proceedings. However, judges are astute to ensure that they do not act unless it is properly justified. Contrast Abrey with Environment Agency v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd,3 where the Court accepted that there was a case of urgency but declined to grant an injunction on