NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

249 ARBITRATION LAW CJSC Energoproekt (“Energoproekt”) had engaged with Enka Insaat ve Sanayi A.S (“Enka”), one of the subcontractors, an inter- national construction and engineering company based in Turkey that has substantial presence and history of operations in Russia. As sub- contractor, Enka was to provide services related to the installation of a boiler and auxiliary equipment installation. The construction contract between Enka and Energoproekt included a dispute resolution clause that provided for ICC arbitration in London. In May 2014, Energoproekt transferred its rights and obligations under the construction contract to Unipro pursuant to an assignment agreement made between Energoproekt, Unipro and Enka, which ex- pressly referred to the arbitration clause contained in the construction contract. In February 2016, massive damage was caused due to a fire that occurred at the power plant. Unipro was compensated by Chubb Rus- sia pursuant to an insurance claim. As Chubb Russia had assumed any rights of the owner to claim compensation, it sought damages from several defendants, including Enka, by commencing a claim before the Russian Courts in May 2019. Following this, Enka brought an arbitration claim in the High Court in London arguing that the proceedings brought against it in Russia was in breach of the arbitration agreement, and also sought an anti-suit injunction 4 , restraining Chubb Russia from pursuing its claim in Russia. The judge dismissed Enka’s claims, primarily on the ground that the English court was not the appropriate forum to determine the dis- pute and declined to make a determination as to the law applicable to the arbitration agreement 5 . 4 The aspects related to the granting anti-suit injunctions have not been analyzed in this newsletter. 5 [2019] EWHC 3568 (Comm), https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ Comm/2019/3568.html