英语论文网

A. INTRODUCTION
1. The subject of this paper is anti-suit injunctions. It concentrates on general
principles
1
. The paper will be supplemented by some practical examples of how
anti-suit injunctions work in practice, and why it often will be necessary to ‘perfect’ an anti-suit injunction, or stay of proceedings, by further proceedings in the other jurisdiction concerned, else accept that proceedings in the other jurisdiction may continue in any event: see Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 90 (Thomas J); The Society of Lloyd’s v White [2004] VSCA 101 (Court of Appeal); BC200403231; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White (No 7) [2003]
VSC 344; BC200305587 (Mandie J); Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White (No 4) (Warren J) [2001] VSC 511
2
; BC200108204; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White (No 3) (Warren J) [2000] VSC 259; BC200003407
1
Jurisdiction and power to grant injunctions: ss 29 and 37 of Supreme Court Act 1986 and Order 38 and Rule 4.08 of Supreme Court Rules. For a summary of https://www.51lunwen.org/australia/the Rules of Procedure and Practice notes relevant to injunctions generally see the notes of the presentation given by Michelle Gordon QC and Justice Susan Crennan in the 2004 CLE Program.
2
See Mark Moshinsky: ‘Comity and Anti-Suit Injunctions’ (2005) 79 ALJ 82.5 applied in Brunei for an injunction to restrain the continuation of the Texas proceeding. The Brunei Court of Appeal declined to grant an appeal against that refusal. The Privy Council allowed an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision (thereby deciding that an injunction to restrain the Texas proceeding should issue).
8. Airbus v Patel [Airbus Industrie G.I.E v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119] involved the crash in India of an airbus designed and assembled in France by a French corporation (“Airbus”) carrying, for the most part, passengers of Indian origin. The passengers included two families of Indian origin who were British citizens. There were proceedings by representatives of the deceased passengers and their families (the
“Indian plaintiffs”) in Bangalore in India against the employers of the pilots and against the airport authority, but not against Airbus, the French corporation. The Indian plaintiffs also commenced proceedings against Airbus and others in Texas.

Texas had favourable legal conditions for plaintiff suits involving aircraft, including the fact that it did not recognise the principle of forum non conveniens, by which a court, in the interests of comity, might decline to hear an otherwise regular proceeding on its own motion or on ahttps://www.51lunwen.org/australia/ stay application made by the defendant. By application of that principle, a court might have concluded that Texas was not the appropriate forum for the proceeding initiated in Texas or, in Australian parlance, was a clearly inappropriate forum. Airbus (a defendant in the Texas proceeding) commenced anti-suit injunction proceedings in Bangalore in India as applicant to prevent the Indian plaintiffs from suing outside India, including, or probably
especially, in Texas. The Bangalore court made orders purporting to restrain the Indian plaintiffs from suing outside India. The substantive competition for jurisdiction therefore was between India and Texas. Yet the proceeding which has occupied the attention of most Australian and English lawyers, was an English proceeding where2
2. By anti-suit injun本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。