Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:17:41.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pilkington Brothers P.L.C. v. AFG Industries Inc. 581 F.Supp. 1039

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 908 - 910
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the purposes of this motion only and to create a discrete legal issue, the defendant stipulated that it would not comply with the High Court's order. Thus, the precise issue before the court was "whether an American court must duplicate a foreign interim injunction, without reference to the underlying dispute, where there are ongoing . . . violations of that foreign injunction." 581 F.Supp. 1039, 1042.

2 Id. at 1046. The court also addressed plaintiffs arguments that the domestic injunction was warranted on the ground of "reciprocity" and because the High Court's order was "final" for res judicata purposes. The court found neither of these issues to be of controlling significance. See id. at 1043-45.

3 June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 UNTS 3.