Worldwide: International Arbitration: You Can't Have Your Court And Eat It

Last Updated: 25 July 2011
Article by Ben Holland and Guy Pendell

In Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others, the claimant had simultaneously commenced an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in New York and substantive Commercial Court proceedings in London over very similar claims, against the same defendants. Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitration agreement between the claimant and those parties was valid. The Commercial Court issued an injunction preventing the claimant from pursuing the arbitration in New York against those parties, on the basis that there was a strong arguable case that they never agreed to the arbitration agreement.
Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others provides an interesting example of a claimant commencing parallel court and arbitration proceedings and casts serious doubts as to the merit of such a procedural tactic in some circumstances. It is also a rare example of the Commercial Court intervening in an arbitration that was subject to the oversight by the New York, not English, courts.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

In Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others, the claimant had simultaneously commenced an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in New York and substantive Commercial Court proceedings in London over very similar claims, against the same defendants. Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitration agreement between the claimant and those parties was valid. The Commercial Court issued an injunction preventing the claimant from pursuing the arbitration in New York against those parties, on the basis that there was a strong arguable case that they never agreed to the arbitration agreement.

Excalibur v Texas Keystone Inc & Others provides an interesting example of a claimant commencing parallel court and arbitration proceedings and casts serious doubts as to the merit of such a procedural tactic in some circumstances. It is also a rare example of the Commercial Court intervening in an arbitration that was subject to the oversight by the New York, not English, courts.

The oil industry is a regular target for claims. These claims are commonly made by commercial counterparties, governments, regulators and, as in the present example, industry facilitators (or agents) seeking payment of a "finders fee" (a fee payable upon introduction to a new market, or exploration opportunity, for provision of local contacts and know-how). Frequently, claims made against oil companies give rise to decisions that add to the development of the general law. The initial rebuttal of certain claims made against companies associated with the oil exploration company Gulf Keystone is one such example.

Oil industry observers will be well aware of Gulf Keystone. It has recently struck significant quantities of commercially recoverable oil reserves in the Shaikhan Block in oil-rich Kurdistan (the semi-autonomous region in Northern Iraq), following a USD500 million investment programme. Gulf Keystone is registered in Bermuda.

Gulf Keystone's chairman and CEO was also a director of other (essentially family) companies, including one called Texas Keystone. There were no other connections between Gulf Keystone and Texas Keystone. Texas Keystone is a smaller company of around 50 staff and has interests in a number of licences in the US. It is based in Pittsburg.

The claimant was a Delaware-based company called Excalibur Ventures ("Excalibur"), a small enterprise managed by a US citizen and his family. The background to the deal was that Excalibur signed an agreement to collaborate with Texas Keystone to bid for licences in Kurdistan, where Excalibur claimed to have commercial and political connections. If successful, Excalibur was to have a 30% participating interest in any eventually awarded licence. Although there were provisions allowing it to become a party at a later date, Gulf Keystone was not a party to the collaboration agreement between Excalibur and Texas Keystone. The collaboration agreement contained an arbitration agreement for ICC arbitration in New York.

In December 2010, Excalibur commenced an action in the Commercial Court in London, against Texas Keystone as well as against Gulf Keystone and three other subsidiaries of its group (together "the Gulf Defendants") alleging that it had been wrongly prevented from contributing to the oil production sharing contract that had been awarded to Gulf Keystone. Excalibur had further applied to the English courts for a worldwide freezing injunction, in a sum exceeding half a billion dollars, which was rejected by Mrs Justice Gloster, who described the injunction as "opportunistic". Excalibur's claim was being funded by an unidentified third party.

On the same day Excalibur also filed a request for ICC arbitration in New York against Texas Keystone and the Gulf Defendants seeking similar, but not identical, relief. Excalibur argued that the Gulf Defendants should be bound to the arbitration agreement as – although they were not signatories to it - they were nonetheless parties to it as the "alter ego" of Texas Keystone when it entered the collaboration agreement. Following the ICC Court's confirmation that the arbitration could proceed, Excalibur applied for a stay of the English proceedings while the Gulf Defendants asked the judge to issue an anti-arbitration injunction claiming that they were not a party to the arbitration agreement.

The questions for the judge were:

(i) whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining arbitration under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 when the seat of the arbitration is in a foreign jurisdiction;

(ii) depending on the outcome above, whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether the Gulf Defendants can be compelled to arbitrate; and

(ii) whether an anti-arbitration injunction for the Gulf Defendants or a stay of the Commercial Court action for Excalibur should be granted.

Although it is rare for the English courts under the Arbitration Act 1996 to interfere with any type of arbitration, especially one commenced in a different jurisdiction, Mrs Justice Gloster decided that the court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction and decided to grant it in this case as there were exceptional circumstances justifying it.

Taking the first two questions together, she decided that the Commercial Court was best placed to rule on the scope and extent of the arbitration agreement. In doing so, the judge referred to last year's Supreme Court decision in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan where, in an action against the enforcement of a foreign award in England, the UK's highest court decided that the English courts have jurisdiction, after the arbitration took place in Paris, to decide on the issue of whether the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement, despite the doctrine of competence-competence, which permits an arbitral tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction. (See our earlier Law-Now)

Considering that the Gulf Defendants had not been proper parties to the collaboration agreement containing the ICC arbitration clause, Mrs Justice Gloster accepted the argument that there was no arbitral jurisdiction over them, and that, for reasons including the chronology of the litigation, the conduct of the claimant, "cost and case management concerns" and the lack of a connection between the defendants and New York and the ICC, it was justifiable to hold that "England is clearly the more appropriate forum for the determination of Excalibur's claims". Two key factors in this decision are worth examining.

The first key factor was whether the arbitrators ought to decide the scope of the arbitration agreement themselves, and be left alone by the courts to do this.

Whilst the English courts will not restrain arbitral proceedings with a seat in a foreign jurisdiction where the parties have "unquestionably agreed" to arbitration, things are very different where, as here, the claimant accepted that it may not have had "good contractual claims against all of the respondent[s]". Recent decisions, including the Supreme Court in Dallah, confirm that the English courts can and will intervene in such circumstances, notwithstanding the doctrine of competence-competence and Article 6.2 of the ICC rules, which provides that after a prima facie decision of the ICC Court it is for the arbitrators to decide on the scope of their jurisdiction.

The second key factor was whether the New York courts ought to decide the scope of the arbitration agreement, not the English courts.

Whilst accepting that questions of arbitrability or jurisdiction may in appropriate circumstances have been better left to the New York courts, Mrs Justice Gloster relied heavily on the fact that Excalibur had accepted the jurisdiction of the English courts in bringing its simultaneous Commercial Court claim (and its application to the Commercial Court for a freezing injunction, a remedy that would not have been granted had this application been brought instead before the New York courts). To refuse the anti-arbitration injunction would force the Gulf Defendants to submit to the jurisdiction of the New York courts, with which they had no connection, and to fight two sets of proceedings at the same time, wasting time and costs. As set out in Dallah, a party should not be compelled to go before a court or arbitral tribunal against whose jurisdiction it vigorously protests.

It followed from the reasoning above that an anti-arbitration injunction was granted to the Gulf Defendants, and Excalibur's requested stay of the Commercial Court action was refused, largely on the basis that if it was stayed, the arbitration would not necessarily finally resolve all the issues currently before the Commercial Court.

This case provides an interesting example of when the English courts will determine that the circumstances are sufficiently "exceptional" to justify their intervention in arbitration with a foreign seat. Previous authority supported intervention of the English courts in an English arbitration either at the enforcement stage, or earlier, on the basis that "sooner or later, the question of substantive jurisdiction is likely to come before the court". In Dallah, the Supreme Court explained the limits of the doctrine of competence-competence in the context of enforcement proceedings. The novelty in Excalibur was that Mrs Justice Gloster decided that these limits were also applicable at the outset of the arbitration proceedings without fearing that this will create a conflict of jurisdictions between a national court and the arbitral tribunal. Although seen by some as an unwarranted infringement into the independence of the arbitral process, the decision by Mrs Justice Gloster seems to prevent defendants from incurring the expense of defending separate, but similar, claims in parallel arbitration and court proceedings.

In terms of lessons to be learned, it is worth noting that in both Dallah and Excalibur, the claimant had accepted a transaction structure that made it hard to claim damages. This case reinforces the approach of the English courts to privity of contract in the arbitration context, in contrast, for example, to the approach of the French court in Dallah. The judge also made clear that she was not impressed with the procedural conduct of Excalibur. If proceedings are "protective proceedings" for the purposes of the Limitation Act, this should be made apparent to the court and the other side at the outset.

Please click here for the case.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 21/07/2011.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.