• In the interim, Nigeria obtained an injunction from the Nigerian court, restraining the parties from continuing with the arbitration. PID confirmed to Nigeria that it would not participate in the Nigerian proceedings. • The tribunal made a procedural order confirming that the seat of the arbitration was London. The tribunal concluded that the parties had agreed upon London as the venue in the arbitration agreement and this meant the selection of London in the juridical sense, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court. • Nigeria sought a further order from the Nigerian court setting aside the procedural order: this application was ultimately not pursued and was struck out. • The Nigerian court set aside the award on liability. • The arbitration continued (with Nigeria reserving its position as to the award on liability) leading to a final award on damages against Nigeria. • PID issued proceedings seeking enforcement of the final award. Judgment Seat of arbitration It was not in issue that supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration could only be exercised by the courts of the arbitral seat; the key question was whether the provision of a venue within the arbitration agreement represented a choice of seat or merely a geographic location for hearings. Mr Justice Butcher held that it was implicit in the parties’ agreement to arbitrate that the tribunal could determine any issue as to the arbitral seat, including by construing the arbitration agreement. The tribunal was entitled to make the procedural order as to the arbitral seat and had not acted in breach of the Nigerian injunction in so doing, as it was not named as a party in those proceedings. Nigeria argued that there had been procedural unfairness as, inter alia, the parties had not had the opportunity to address the tribunal as to the correct arbitral seat. However, the judge found that