Parties to a legal dispute often seek interim measures in order to safeguard their rights pending the final resolution of the dispute. In circumstances where those parties have entered a binding agreement to have their dispute settled by arbitration, the tribunal and the court may share jurisdiction to make such interim orders. It is not always easy to draw a line between the proper jurisdiction of the court to make such orders, and where the court should make room for the tribunal to exercise its own jurisdiction. This difficulty arises as there is a natural tension found between the supervisory and supportive role that courts play to the arbitration process, and the primacy of party consent and autonomy in their agreement to arbitrate, and therefore the arbitral tribunal as the primary decision maker, for resolving the dispute. The article explores judicial approaches taken across various jurisdictions, such as Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, in determining the extent to which courts should award interim measures both before and after arbitral tribunals are empanelled in a dispute.
Asian International Arbitration Journal