Best Trade Solution

Expert advice welcome

The issuing bank refused to pay. In turn, the beneficiary invoked the dispute settlement clause in the Letter of Credit (which mentioned disputes will be settled by ICC Arbitration AND also that emergency arbitrator provisions shall not apply..whatever that means ).

Now the APPLICANT goes ahead and files a case in his country's Supreme Court demanding stay of ICC Arbitration proceedings. Issuing bank also joined proceedings as intervener (from applicant's side obviously). The applicant didn't join. Therefore the matter was ex-parte.

Now the Supreme Court gave EX PARTE decision and ISSUED WRIT RESTRAINING ICC from proceeding with the arbitration.

NOTE. Issuing bank and Applicant are from the same country. Beneficiary is from different country.

I want to ask - Can the court do so? IS this within its jurisdiction? Help please

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the court would wish to determine that all voluntarily agreed method of recourse, viz, UCP and ICC arbitration process have been exhausted before applying to the courts for judgement

Hmm, but clearly the court granted the writ in this case nonetheless. Now, can it be because the Beneficiary failed to join the proceedings and it was given ex-parte; therefore, the court didn't get to hear the other side of the story?

But again, this doesn't answer my confusion - Can the Court do so i.e. Does the court have jurisdiction to prevent ICC proceedings, even when the L/C mention them to be the preferred method...?

Waiting for more experts. Thanks though.