There had been complex multi-party litigation in England. The appellants sought discharge from an anti-suit injunction restraining them from taking some issues to their home court, Georgia in the USA. They contended that the reasons which surrounded the original reasons for litigation in London had now been discharged.
Held: The section creates the power to grant an anti-suit injunction provided personal jurisdiction can be exercised, and it is ‘just and convenient’ to do so. The ship owners had submitted to the English courts by bringing their claims here. There was therefore personal jurisdiction. No legitimate interest in pursuing claims in Georgia had been shown, and no prejudice was suggested if restrained from proceeding in Georgia. The conclusion was that they acted against conscience. A need for the protection of an injunction had been shown.
Judges:
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Rix
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 524, [2002] CLC 1151
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Donohue v Armco Inc and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.170027