¹ Judgment of 27 Apr 2004, [2004] WL 58636, [2004] All ER 485.Google Scholar

² Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 1968.Google Scholar

³ Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Dec 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 2001 L 12/1–23.Google Scholar

⁴ Turner v Grovit and others [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 All ER 960.Google Scholar

⁵ Turner v Grovit [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 445.Google Scholar

⁶ Turner v Grovit [2000] 1 QB 345.Google Scholar

⁷ Turner v Grovit [2000] 1 QB 345 at 356.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid at 364.

⁹ Ibid at 11; OJ 2002 C 169/18.

¹⁰ The anti-suit injunction originated in the English Court of Chancery. For a description of the history of anti-suit injunctions, see TC Hartley ‘Comity and the Use of Anti-suit Injunctions in International Litigation’ (1987) American Journal of Comparative Law 487–511 at 489–90.Google Scholar

¹¹ Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37(1).Google Scholar

¹² Ibid at 15–16.

¹³ Ibid at 20.

¹⁴ [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 216 at 219–20 (not yet published in the ECR).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid para 31.

¹⁶ [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 216 at para 34.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid para 38.

¹⁸ See inter alia Wilson, J ‘Anti-suit injunctions’ Journal of Business Law (1997) 424–37;Google ScholarNorth, PM and Fawcett, JJCheshire and North's Private International Law (13th ednLondonButterworths 1999) 268–72;Google ScholarO'Brien, JSmith's Conflict of Laws (2nd ednLondonCavendish Publishing 1999) 218–20;Google ScholarCollins, L et al. Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th ednLondonSweet & Maxwell 2000) 419–20;Google ScholarHartley, TC ‘Anti-suit injunctions and the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention’ (2000) ICLQ 166–71;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcClean, DMorris: The Conflict of Laws (5th ednLondonSweet & Maxwell 2000) 130;Google ScholarClarkson, CMV and Hill, JJaffey on the Conflict of Laws (2nd ednLondonButterworths 2002) 147–9;Google ScholarWautelet, P ‘Les Conflits de procédures. Etude de droit international privé comparé’ (2002) unpublished doctoral thesis, Leuven, KU, 294, 298–9;Google ScholarBriggs, A and Rees, PCivil Jurisdiction and Judgments (3rd ednLondonLLP 2002) 366–8.Google ScholarFor a more general reflection on anti-suit injunctions from a continental point of view, see Verheul, JP ‘Waait de antisuit injunction naar het continent over?’ Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (1989) 7(1) 221–4.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See inter alia Hartley, TC ‘Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention: Jurisdiction agreement and lis alibi pendens’ (1994) European Law Review 19(5) 549–52;Google ScholarMcKee, M ‘Case Comment. Jurisdiction Clauses’ (1994) Journal of International Banking Law 9(4) N85–N86;Google ScholarChatterjee, C ‘The legal effect of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Brussels Convention in relation to banking matters’ (1995) Journal of International Banking Law 10(8) 334–40;Google ScholarMildred, M ‘The use of the Brussels Convention in group actions’ (1996) Journal of Personal Injury Litigation 121–34, at 130;Google ScholarNorth, PM and Fawcett, JJCheshire and North's Private International Law (13th ednLondonButterworths 1999) 256 and 270;Google ScholarHartley, TC ‘Anti-suit injunctions and the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention’, (2000) ICLQ 166–71, at 170–1;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBriggs, A and Rees, PCivil Jurisdiction and Judgments (3rd ednLondonLLP 2002) 36–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ Continental Bank NA v Aekos Compania Naviera SA and Others [1994] 1 WLR 577. In the subsequent case, The Eras EIL Actions [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 64, at 78–9, the Queen's Bench Division refused to grant an anti-suit injunction, but admitted that the Brussels Convention did not prohibit it to grant such injunction if the conditions were satisfied.Google Scholar

²¹ The Court of Appeal found that the provision on jurisdiction clauses took precedence over the provision on lis pendens. Since Case C-l 16/02, Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl., judgment of 9 Dec 2003, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 222 at 229–30 (not yet published in the ECR), we know, however, that that interpretation by the Court of Appeal was not correct; even if the parties concluded a choice of court agreement, the strict priority rule must be observed.Google Scholar

²² [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76.Google Scholar

²³ Hartley, TC, n 10 above at 506.Google Scholar

²⁴ In its judgment of 10 Jan 1996, [1997] IL Pr 320.Google Scholar

²⁵ Case C-1 16/02, Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl., 2003, judgment of 9 Dec 2003 [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 222, Rec 73 (not yet reported in the ECR).Google Scholar

²⁶ Rec 72 of judgment.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Hartley, , n 19 above at 166 and 168.Google Scholar

²⁸ Art 27 Brussels I Regulation; Art 21 Brussels Convention.Google Scholar

²⁹ Art 28 Brussels I Regulation; Art 22 Brussels Convention.Google Scholar

³⁰ Briggs and Rees, n 19 above at 365.Google Scholar

³¹ Case C-406/92, The Owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The Owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’ [1994] ECR I-5439.Google Scholar

³² Case C-351/96, Drouot Assurances v Consolidated Metallurgical Industries and others [1998] ECR I-3075.Google Scholar

³³ Case C-406/92, The Owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The Owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’, [1994] ECR I-5439, Rec 31.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid at 632.

³⁵ See Case C-l 16/02, Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl., judgment of 9 Dec 2003 [2004] Lloyd's Rep 222 (not yet reported in ECR), where the strict priority rule was confirmed. The Brussels Convention required reference to national law for the date of the institution of the action (Case C-129/83, Zelger v Salinitri, [1984] ECR 2397). The Brussels I Regulation has instituted a unified rule.Google ScholarSee Gaudemet-Tallon, HCompétence et exécution des jugements en Europe (3rd ednParisLGDJ 2002) 267–9.Google Scholar

³⁶ See McClean, D, n 18 above at 126 et seq. See also A Briggs and P Rees, n 19 above at 217, stating that the Brussels I Regulation provides a high degree of uniformity, but a low degree of discretion.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Case C-365/88, Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV, [1990] ECR I-1845, Rec 17–19. See also Case 148/84, Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank v SA Brasserie du Pêcheur [1985] ECR 1981 and Case 145/86, Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645 on the distinction between Convention rules and national rules in the context of enforcement.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Case C-365/88, Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV, [1990] ECR I-1845, Rec 20.Google Scholar

³⁹ Art 34(4) Brussels I Regulation.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Compare the agreement concluded between the parties in Continental Bank NA v Aeakos Compania Naviera SA and others [1994] 1 WLR 588: the borrowers had to bring proceedings in England while the bank retained the right to bring proceedings in any country that had jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal found that there had been a clear intention that the borrowers, but not the bank, be obliged to submit disputes to the English courts and in this sense the borrowers were not permitted to bring proceedings in Greece, as they had done.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Art 23 Brussels I Regulation provides for choice of court clauses in favour of courts in the EU between two parties, at least one of which is domiciled in the EU. These clauses are exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. In the example mentioned, the application of the Regulation would in fact depend on the court seized: if it is an EU court, the Regulation will be applied. It is worth noting that the future Hague Convention on exclusive choice of court agreements will not apply if the forum election is not exclusive. For further information on the project of that Convention, see <http://www.hcch.net>..>Google Scholar

⁴² There is no clarity as yet on this situation (see Briggs, and Rees, , n 19 above at 371), but let us assume for argument's sake that an anti-suit injunction may be granted in this case.Google Scholar

⁴³ One can make reference here to the effet réflexe, the doctrine of Professor GAL Droz, stating that the courts of EU Member States should decline jurisdiction if there is a forum clause in favour of a third State court.Google ScholarSee Droz, GALPratique de la convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 (ParisLibrairie Dalloz 1973) 34;Google ScholarDroz, GAL ‘La Convention de San Sebastian alignant la Convention de Bruxelles sur la Convention de Lugano’ (1990) Revue critique de droit international privé 1–21 at 14;Google ScholarGothot, P and Holleaux, DLa Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 (ParisJupiter 1985) 84;Google ScholarGaudemet-Tallon, H ‘Les frontières extérieures de l'espace judiciaire européen: quelques repères’, in E Pluribus unum. Liber Amicorum George A.L. Droz (The Hague Martinus Nijhof Publishers 1996) 85–104, at 95–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Regarding the opposite position, namely anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration, see Shackleton, SR ‘Global warming: milder still in England: Part 2’ (1999) International Arbitration Law Review 2(4) 117–36, at 124–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another [1998] ECR, I-7091.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This case dealt with provisional measures requested before a Dutch court despite the existence of an arbitration clause. The Court of Justice found that these provisional measures fell within the scope of the Brussels Convention and in this sense created confusion as to the extent of the exclusion of arbitration proceedings from the Brussels regime (Art l(2)(d) Brussels I Regulation; Art 1(4) Brussels Convention).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson and others, the hearing of which started on 4 May 2004.Google Scholar