Anti-Suit Agreement

Active participation in foreign proceedings may be the reason for an application against legal action, as it can be construed as the applicant`s accepting the jurisdiction of the foreign court. So be careful about the extent of engagement in a foreign procedure. Invoking the Hong Kong arbitration clause, the owners sought an injunction against the Hong Kong complaint, which limited the continuation of the Turkish proceedings. Justice Godfrey Lam heard the owners` request for the injunction to be pursued. Violation of a referral order against the court amounts to contempt of court, which can result in penalties such as fines, imprisonment and forfeiture of assets. This is a strong incentive for a respondent to comply with the terms of an injunction and makes these injunctions a powerful instrument for a plaintiff. At present, the national courts of EU Member States are not in a position to issue injunctions that limit judicial proceedings in another Member State (Turner/Grovit [2004]). It remains to be seen whether the EU`s anti-suit provisions will be available again after Brexit. Shortly after the execution of the deposit contracts, the applicants and the bank restructured the loan agreement and terminated the deposit contracts. LCIA also chose the agreement to terminate the collateral as a forum for the resolution of disputes by incorporating the corresponding arbitration clauses of the deposit contracts, in reference to the corresponding arbitration clauses. The in-Zimsachen Times/NBF addressed some of the nuances underlying these fundamental principles, in particular a specific sub-category of the ASI (i.e. the “quasi-contractual” ASI) and the circumstances under which the Angelic Grace test should apply even in the absence of a clear arbitration agreement binding the parties concerned.

A recent decision by the English Court of Appeal in the case of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS/OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” – Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 574 confirmed that the English court still has jurisdiction to decide whether a decision in favour of arbitration in England, even if such a decision requires consideration of the law of another jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also clarified the correct approach to determining the law of the arbitration agreement by applying a presumption that the parties will have implicitly chosen the right of the seat as the law of the arbitration agreement if the explicit choice of another statute has not been made. The parties largely agreed on the following general principles of the ASI in English law: the judgment contains a useful summary of the general principles applicable to the “contractual” ASI when foreign proceedings are initiated in violation of a binding arbitration agreement (or exclusive jurisdiction clause), as well as a more detailed analysis of the less developed area of the “quasi-contractual” ASI. if there is no clear arbitration agreement that binds the parties contractually, but the respondent should nevertheless be required to abide by them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.