GAIJIN NETWORK LTD v. EVGENY OLEGOCIVH, the Nicosia District Court refused an application by Gaijin Network Ltd for urgent Cyprus orders in aid of an intended London ICC arbitration.
Gaijin's requests were as follows:
- Norwich Pharmacal-style disclosure from Olegocivh, including identification of confidential information in his possession and of anyone who had supplied it to him.
- Mandatory orders requiring Olegocivh to delete the three Reddit posts and any other publication containing Gaijin's confidential information.
- A prohibitory order restraining further publication of Gaijin's confidential information, including information about customers, products, staff and internal operations.
On requests 2 and 3, the Nicosia District Court reasoned through the intended scope of interim measures under the Cyprus International Commercial Arbitration Law, Law 101/1987, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Article 9, on court interim measures ordered in support of arbitration, says only that the court may order interim measures of protection before or during the arbitral proceedings. It does not define that power or list the available orders.
Article 17 of the same Law, which governs the arbitral tribunal's powers to grant temporary protection, expressly permits freezing, prohibitory, mandatory and other types of orders. That textual difference was decisive for requests 2 and 3. Article 9 could support a protective order, but not the mandatory and prohibitory orders Gaijin sought.
From the practitioner point of view, this case provides a stark reminder of the limits on interim relief that can be ordered by a national court, as opposed to the arbitral tribunal itself. It also spells out the practical benefit of applying for an emergency arbitrator where the relief sought is urgent and takes the form of mandatory or prohibitory orders. The ICC emergency procedure exists specifically for parties that need urgent measures before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
The disclosure request failed on a separate basis. Gaijin already knew the intended respondent, the services agreement, the Reddit posts complained of and the alleged breach. The court treated the request to identify other possible sources of information as a fishing expedition. It also mattered that the order was sought against the intended arbitration respondent, not a neutral intermediary.