HT-2024-000187 - [2024] EWHC 1560 (TCC)

In the circumstances, I do not consider that the EA has surmounted the jurisdictional hurdle of section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Given this decision, there is no need for me to go on to consider any of the arguments arising in relation to the grant of injunctive relief. These arguments (particularly on the subject of whether there is a serious issue to be tried) raise questions which the arbitrator will be required to deal with in due course and I am mindful of the need to avoid usurping or interfering in the arbitral process more than is required in order to determine this application.

For the reasons I have given, the application is dismissed and my present view is that costs should follow the event. If the EA wishes to argue that any different order should be made on costs, I will determine the question on paper and the parties should please liaise between themselves as to the exchange of short written submissions. In any event, I invite the parties to prepare the necessary order reflecting my decision.

By way of postscript, I observe that it is extremely unfortunate that these two bodies, both ultimately funded by the taxpayer, have been unable to resolve the issues that arise in this case; issues of which they have been aware for some considerable time. In my judgment it is now crucial that the extant issues between the parties are resolved as soon as possible and I would urge both parties to cooperate in seeking an expeditious resolution through the arbitral process.