In The Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group [2007] EWHC 2729 (Comm), the Commercial Court granted an "anti-arbitration" injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing any further proceedings against the claimant in an LCIA arbitration.

The claimant, Istil, had obtained a favourable Partial Award on jurisdiction, although the named party was the claimant's predecessor in title, which had ceased to exist by the time the Partial Award was rendered. In the Final Award, the tribunal substituted Istil as claimant and awarded damages in its favour. The Final Award was subsequently set aside by Steel J for lack of substantive jurisdiction. Permission to appeal against this decision was refused by Steel J, by the Court of Appeal and by the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (see Legal update, Arbitration claims: permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal). Istil asked the arbitrators to reconvene and make a new award on liability, on the basis that Steel J's judgment did not affect the validity of the Partial Award. However, Tomlinson J granted an anti-arbitration injunction restraining Istil from pursuing the LCIA arbitration proceedings any further.

Although Tomlinson J did not attempt to formulate the rare circumstances in which the court should restrain a party from pursuing arbitration proceedings, he considered that further pursuit of the arbitration proceedings in this case would be oppressive, vexatious and unconscionable. The case also provides useful guidance as to the effect of an earlier award when the tribunal's final award treats the earlier award as being of no effect.