The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of the contract.
Held: Where a remedy was available both in England and in a foreign jurisdiction, proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction would only be restrained by order here where the foreign proceedings were in some way abusive. An English court may decline an injunction or stay where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but also claims outside the contract which would result in parallel and conflicting proceedings. In this situation there was an overwhelming advantage in securing one decision in the most appropriate forum, which was New York. Injunction refused under conditions.
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Civ 94, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 579, [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 641, [2000] CLC 1090
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – R T Donohue v Armco Inc ComC 15-Jul-1999
ComC The individual claimant wished to prevent proceedings being brought against him in NY by 5 Defendant companies, who wished to sue him there for damages for conspiracy; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty and for . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Jurisdiction
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147127