This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
TAXONOMISING “QUASI-CONTRACTUAL” ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS
Myron Phua * and Serena Seo Yeon Lee †
Times Trading v National Bank of Fujairah
The label “anti-suit injunction” denotes an assemblage of different things, united by how they involve an English court ordering someone not to sue another somewhere else. Taxonomically speaking, the remedy responds to one of three general events: (1) a contractual promise, 1 (2) an equitable wrong 2 or (3) a public policy imperative. 3 The main species of the first genus are those awarded to enforce the negative contractual duty contained in an exclusive jurisdiction clause obliging the parties not to bring a claim falling within its scope in a non-designated forum. These are presumptively obtainable by
* The Queen’s College, Oxford.
† Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge.
The authors are very grateful to Professor Stephen Hall for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this draft. All errors are our own.
1. Donohue v Armco Inc  UKHL 64;  1 Lloyd’s Rep 425, .
2. Turner v Grovit  UKHL 65;  ICR 94;  1 WLR 107, .
3. Petter v EMC Europe Ltd  EWCA Civ 828, [51–55], .
Case and comment
The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online
If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.