In Permasteelisa Japan UK v Bouygesstroi – Butterworths Law Direct 7.11.07 the TCC held that the court's power to grant an interim injunction under s 44(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996 had to apply to a case where an arbitral tribunal had yet to be appointed, and that an application for an injunction to stop a call on a performance bond came within s 44(3). In general, the court, when considering whether to make an injunction under s 44 of the Act should apply the same principles as would have applied had the matter come before it in legal proceedings, rather than adopting the lesser test of maintaining the situation pending the determination of the arbitral tribunal.

Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides: '(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court has for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings the same power of making orders about the matters listed below as it has for the purposes of and in relation to legal proceedings ... (3) If the case is one of urgency, the court may, on the application of a party or proposed party to the arbitral proceedings, make such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets ... (5) In any case the court shall act only if or to the extent that the arbitral tribunal, and any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with power in that regard, has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively ...'