C v D
C and D entered into a Bermuda form of insurance contract which was governed by New York law but which provided that any arbitration proceedings should take place in London. C obtained an award in its favour against D for unpaid monies. D said that it was going to apply to a US federal court to challenge the award. C therefore sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent D from challenging the award in New York. At first instance, Mr Justice Cooke agreed with C and held that by agreeing to London being the scene of the arbitration, the parties had agreed that any challenge to an award must be made only in the courts of the place where the seat of the arbitration was. Thus, this dispute was about the question of whether English law was the "curial law" of the arbitration. In other words, were only remedies normally available under English law available to D as the party seeking to challenge the arbitration tribunal decision. The CA agreed with Mr Justice Cooke, saying that by choosing London as the seat of the arbitration, both C and D had to be taken to have agreed that proceedings to challenge the award should only be those permitted by English law. Longmore LJ said:
“If there is no express law of the arbitration agreement, the law of which that agreement has its closest and most real connection is the law of underlying contract or the law of the seat of arbitration. It seems to me that … the answer is more likely to be the law of the seat of the arbitration than the law of the underlying contract".