Were Lion entitled to a stay on case management grounds?
Lion claimed that a stay should be granted on the basis that the extent of Lion’s liability to Classic under the guarantee would involve the exact same considerations as those which would have to be determined in any arbitration between Classic and Limbungan. Should there be parallel Court proceedings there would be a risk of inconsistent decisions. Lion argued that the Court proceedings should therefore be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration between Classic and Limbungan. The Court rejected Lion’s arguments and refused to grant the stay, holding that to do so would achieve the very opposite of what was envisaged by the terms of the guarantee, which provided for the obligations of Lion as guarantor to be considered independently of those of Limbungan. Allowing the application for a stay would be to allow Limbungan and Lion to preserve Limbungan’s right to arbitration with Classic but to override Classic’s right to litigate with Lion in the courts under its contract with Li
