Enercon GmbH & Anor v Wind World (India) Ltd
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Enercon and WWIL were involved in a complex dispute involving both English and Indian courts. Enercon sought various injunctions and orders from the English court, which were challenged by WWIL. The proceedings included multiple hearings and applications for costs. The Indian Supreme Court eventually determined India as the seat of arbitration. The English court then ruled that WWIL was entitled to 90% of the reserved costs from Enercon, with an interim payment of £300,000.
Judgment
Mr Justice Eder:
The principle issue before the Court is the determination of costs reserved by the Court in these proceedings on three previous occasions in 2012 and 2013.
The background to the underlying disputes is set out in my previous Judgment which I delivered on 23 March 2012 and which is reported at [2012] EWHC 689 (Comm) . It is unnecessary to repeat what is there set out. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note the following.
The present proceedings commenced on 21 November 2011 when the claimants (who I shall refer to compendiously as “Enercon”) issued an Arbitration Claim Form (“ACF”) seeking, in particular, (i) the appointment of a third arbitrator pursuant to s18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”); and (ii) an anti-suit injunction preventing the defendant (“WWIL”) from starting or pursuing proceedings in India which interfered with Enercon’s attempt to seek the appointment of a third arbitrator. In effect, Enercon thereby invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the English Court on the basis that (i) there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties; and (ii) England was the seat of the arbitration which Enercon had previously sought to commence in March 2008 pursuant to that arbitration agreement.
On 25 November 2011, Enercon then obtained an ex parte order (the “first Order”) from Flaux J (i) permitting them to serve the ACF on WWIL out of the jurisdiction; and (ii) granting the anti-suit injunction. This ex parte anti-suit injunction effectively prevented WWIL from proceeding with the ongoing Writ Petitions in the Bombay High Court (“BHC”) or the Daman Court.
On 15 February 2012 Enercon made a further application (which came before me) and obtained an ex parte injunction (the “second Order”) in the sum of €90m in respect of claims in connection with the underlying contract (“IPLA”) and Heads of Agreement.
On 1 March 2012, WWIL then issued an application notice for an order declaring (i) that the English Court did not have jurisdiction in relation to the ACF action; alternatively (ii) that the English Court should not exercise its jurisdiction; alternatively (iii) that the English Court should stay the ACF action pending further order of the Court. The notice also sought the discharge of the first and second Orders. On 8 March 2012, Enercon then issued their own application notice seeking continuation of the first and second Orders. I heard these applications on 12 and 13 March 2012 and delive