This paper examines a recent High Court decision, Pearl Petroleum v Kurdistan Regional Government, where the claimants sought to enforce a peremptory order of the tribunal in the English courts. The respondent argued that such an order was injunctive relief within the meaning of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) s.13, and therefore, impermissible. In response to the claimant’s argument, the respondent also maintained that it did not waive immunity to injunctive relief by written consent, an exception allowed by the SIA s.13(2)(b). This paper considers that part of the Pearl Petroleum decision. Given the paucity of clear language addressing immunity from interim relief in the context of arbitration, Pearl Petroleum is helpful in highlighting some of the problems arising from such applications, but it also leaves several questions unanswered.