header-logo header-logo

An uncertain future?

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Should the English anti-suit injunction expect another blow from the ECJ? Steven Friel reports

Imagine the following scenario. An English company (UK Co) has entered into a contract with a company (Euro Co) from a far-flung European country (eg Estonia, Bulgaria, Italy, Finland, Poland, or indeed any other of the 26 other member states). Wary of potentially having to litigate in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, UK Co insists upon an English arbitration clause in the contract. Euro Co agrees to this, and their contract duly provides for all disputes to be settled in arbitration before a sole arbitrator in London, applying English law and proceeding in the English language. So far, all fine.

Six months down the line, however, and the parties are in dispute. Euro Co considers that UK Co has breached the contract. Rather than commencing London arbitration, however, Euro Co commences an action in courts in Euro Co’s home jurisdiction.

In these circumstances, can an English court issue an anti-suit injunction restraining Euro Co from proceeding in its home jurisdiction in breach of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll