Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel Nv: CA 27 Oct 1997

(Patents) ‘The United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction to prevent vexation and oppression by persons subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, the courts are entitled to prevent persons domiciled in this country from being submitted to vexatious or oppressive litigation whether started or to be started in this country or another country. As was stated in the advice of the Privy Council in SNI Aerospatiale v Lee, a court can restrain a person from pursuing proceedings in a foreign court where a remedy is available both in that foreign court and [in] this country, but will only do so if pursuit by the person ‘would be vexatious or oppressive’. Further, since such order indirectly affects the foreign court, the jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and only if the ends of justice so require. We emphasise that injunctions granted for such purpose are directed against the vexatious party and not the courts of the other jurisdiction.’


Lord Woolf MR


[1997] EWCA Civ 3096, [1998] FSR 222, [1998] ILPr 732




Patents Act 1977


England and Wales


CitedSociete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
Appeal fromFort Dodge Animal Health Limited, Arthur Webster Pty Ltd, Webster Animal Health (Uk) Ltd, Willows Francis Limited, Fort Dodge Animal Health Benelux B V v Akzo Novel N V, Intervet International B V PatC 15-Oct-1997
The English court will not be used to block proper access for a party to justice in a foreign court; matters are to be tried according to cConvention in the proper home state. . .

Cited by:

CitedTurner 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.276281