Striking a Balance for Court Intervention in Arbitration Disputes: The Decision in Cetelem S.A. v. Roust Holdings Limited

C. Newmark
Newmark, Chris
T. Yates
Yates, Thomas

Article from: TDM 5 (2005), in International Commercial Arbitration

Introduction

Since the introduction of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the "1996 Act"), there has been debate and uncertainty as to the extent to which the English courts should provide interim relief to a party in urgent cases notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement. Must the relief sought be for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets, or are other forms of injunctive relief available? In a recent unanimous decision of the English Court of Appeal, the court clarified how Section 44(3) is to be construed. The court confirmed that the 1996 Act gave power to the English ...

To read this article you need to be a subscriber

Sign in

Forgot password?

Sign in

Subscribe

Fill in the registration form and answer a few simple questions to receive a quote.

Subscribe now

Why subscribe?

TDM journal

Access to TDM Journal articles (well over 2500 articles in total for Premium account holders)

Legal & regulatory

Access to Legal & Regulatory data (well over 10000 documents)

OGEMID

OGEMID membership (lively discussion platform bringing together the world's international dispute management community)

Suggested Citation

C. Newmark; T. Yates; "Striking a Balance for Court Intervention in Arbitration Disputes: The Decision in Cetelem S.A. v. Roust Holdings Limited"
TDM 5 (2005), www.transnational-dispute-management.com

URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=577