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 sufficient justification for the grant of injunctive relief. The mere fact that the English court refused a stay of English proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not itself justify the grant of an injunction to restrain foreign proceedings. In this case the defendant’s vexatious conduct was taken into account.
When an English court makes a restraining order, it is making an order which is addressed only to a party which is before it. The order is not directed against the foreign court. ‘An injunction will only be issued restraining a party who is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court, against whom an injunction will be an effective remedy’ The jurisdiction derives from ‘the basic principle of justice.’
Lord Goff set out the following test: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships, in a case such as the present where remedy for a particular wrong is available both in the English (or, as here, the Brunei) court and in a foreign court, the English or Brunei Court will, generally speaking, only restrain the plaintiff from pursuing proceedings in the foreign court if such pursuit would be vexatious or oppressive. This presupposes that, as a general rule, the English or Brunei Court must conclude that it provides the natural forum for the trial of the action; and further, since the Court is concerned with the ends of justice, that account must be taken not only of injustice to the defendant if the plaintiff is allowed to pursue the foreign proceedings, but also of injustice to the plaintiff if he is not allowed to do so. So the Court will not grant an injunction if, by doing so, it will deprive the plaintiff of advantages in the foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him.’
Otherwise: SNI Aerospatiale v Lee
Judges:
Keith of Kinkel, Griffiths, Mackay of Clashfern, Goff of Chieveley LL, Sir John Megaw
Citations:
[1987] 1 AC 871, [1987] UKPC 12
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The . .
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. . .
Cited – Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others CA 26-Jun-2009
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.443457
