Few recent cases have generated as much comment as the decision handed down by the House of Lords on 21 February, 2007, in West Tankers v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta & Others. This may seem surprising given that the judgment itself did not decide anything; it simply referred a question of law to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, the concerns articulated by their Lordships in the judgment, as well as by lawyers and academics practising international arbitration in London, underline just how important that question is perceived to be.
The issue referred to the ECJ was: “Is it consistent with European Commission (EC) regulation 44/2001 for a court of a member state to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings in another member state on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of an arbitration agreement?” EC regulation 44/2001 relates to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between European Union (EU) member states and has effectively superseded the mutual recognition regime established by the Brussels convention. The question referred was described by Lord Hoffman, who gave the leading judgment of the House, as one “of very considerable practical importance”, which it undoubtedly is.
