KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

There is no exceptionality in Claxton terms that would justify the granting of an anti-arbitration injunction. There is nothing vexatious or oppressive given that no court has ruled on the existence or validity of the clause 3 arbitration contract. The wider public interest considerations the claimants point to have little relevance to the question of injunctive relief at this point and the serious issue to be tried issue in American Cyanimid is a threshold question about sufficiency of prospects rather than claimed importance of issue. It must be remembered that the arbitral proceedings initiated by the defendant are in respect of its claim of £1.5 million overpayment. There is no counterclaim in the arbitration proceedings made by Orange, which has not engaged with the process and disputes arbitral jurisdiction. It remains unclear how the serious allegations of tax evasion and fraud made by the claimants feed into the overpayment dispute, but it will be open to Orange to develop the point before the arbitrator. The defendant seeks to have its claim adjudicated by the sole arbitrator under what it claims to be a valid arbitration contract. I cannot see what is vexatious or oppressive about that given the Part 11 challenge has failed, as has the CPR 3.4 application.

Lacking proper foundation, the application for injunctive relief is dismissed on both bases under which it was sought, the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the CPR. Both applications are similarly misconceived. Having dismissed the claimants’ three applications, I turn to the applications made by the defendant.