Summary

This is an application made by the Claimant, Party "A", for what is described as a stay pursuant to CPR rule 3.1(2)(g) of two arbitrations which are pending between Party A and the First Defendant ('Party B'), before the same arbitrator (who is the Second Defendant), conducted under the LCIA Rules 2020. There is also an application by Party A for a stay of its own application under s. 24 Arbitration Act 1996. I am not dealing with that in the present judgment.

I take an account of the background largely from the parties' skeleton arguments. It is not intended to be controversial. The underlying arbitrations concern a number of high value contracts for the supply of artillery rounds and rockets to Ukraine. In the arbitrations Party B alleges that it has paid deposits towards some of the sums claimed by Party A in invoices for rounds and rockets but has not received the products. It claims for the return of the deposits and greater sums in penalties and interest.

...

Party A seeks to argue that the December Orders were in fact interim awards. I reject that suggestion. The December Orders have the form of procedural orders and that reflects the reality. They do not settle substantive rights between the parties to the arbitrations. They deal with the procedural conduct of the arbitral process. They are not, therefore, awards.

In the event that there is a serious irregularity arising out of the procedure which has been or which the arbitrator has decided should be adopted, Party A's right will be to challenge the award or, as it is seeking to do, to seek the arbitrator's removal. Those rights are not prejudiced by the arbitrations proceeding at the moment. If I had considered that I had the power to interfere prior to an award I would not in any event do so. For reasons I have given I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances which would lead the Court to seek to intervene in the present case in the way suggested by this application.