We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

TAXONOMISING “QUASI-CONTRACTUAL” ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

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 [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425, [24]. 2. Turner v Grovit [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] ICR 94; [2002] 1 WLR 107, [24]. 3. Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828, [51–55], [61]. Case and comment 59

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more