An order was sought to restrain proceedings in Pakistan.
Held: The agreement provided that it should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of England. The national state was also party to the agreement, and had waived sovereign immunity. It was not clear which proceedings had commenced first, but the terms of the guarantee were clear enough to justify an anti-suit injunction from the English courts. Clauses dealing with waiver of immunity need not be construed tightly.
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Pill
Times 27-Nov-2002,  EWCA Civ 1643
England and Wales
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 . .
See Also – Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another CA 24-Apr-2002
Cited – OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.178077