英语论文网

NTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS AND THE RECOVERABILITY OF LEGAL COSTS
Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Recoverability of Legal Costs as Damages for Breach of an Arbitration Agreement

1. INTRODUCTION
All the 留学生论文代写discussion at the moment is about the failing support around Europe for the very
English remedy of the anti-suit injunction. Europe is determined to get rid of the remedy, very much maligned and misunderstood, even if it means construing the exemption in the  Brussels Regulation 44/2001
 (Brussels Regulation) in unrecognisable fashion. Of course,
the arbitration exemption was not inserted to encourage intrusions into the legal process of another sovereign state. By restraining arbitration in another country, the supervisory court of that arbitration arguably feels the effect also. But is this not simply a remedy designed to compel a defaulting party to comply with a promise? It depends on how one sees it.
It is widely expected that the reference by the House of Lords in the West Tankers
Case to the European Court of Justice will herald the end of the intra-Europe anti-suit in support of arbitrations, in the same way Turner v Grovit and Gasser
marked the end of the remedy in support of litigation. C’est la vie! But the anti-suit injunction is alive and well and being used effectively to restrain proceedings in jurisdictions not party to the Brussels Regulation.
We set out below an unusual example of an anti-suit injunction, used effectively to restrain the foreign proceedings in support of an arbitration taking place in another country.
This article also deals with the result of the actions of the breaching party and the question of whether it is possible to bring proceedings in the appropriate court to recover legal costs as damages for breach of the arbitration agreement. The damage would comprise costs incurred defending the foreign court proceedings and by obtaining the anti-suit to restrain the other party from continuing the foreign court proceedings in breach of the original arbitration commitment. In a first step, reference will be made to the common law position with respect to a breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which will allow some useful extrapolations as to the recoverability of legal costs as damages in breach of an arbitration clause in a second step. Before concluding, some considerations will be made as to whether interest on legal costs can be awarded as damages under English law and more particularly as part of
the legal costs sounding in damages for breach of the arbitration agreement.
Regulation 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters: [2001] OJ L12/1.
West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and others [2007] UKHL 4.
Case C-159/02 [2004] E.C.R. I-3565.
Case C-116/02 Gasser v MISAT Srl [2003] E.C.R. I-14693.
For a contemporaneous commentary on Turner v Grovit and Gasser, see Gordon Blanke, “The ECJ’s Recent Jurisprudence on Anti-Suit Injunctions under the Brussels Convention: A
Promising De′but for a more Prominent Role for Arbitration in European Commercial Dispute Resolution at the Dawn of the 21st Century?” (2005) 16 EBLR 591. For a commentary on West Tankers in this context, see most recently Hew R. Dundas, “Court Support of Arbitration Agreements: Anti-Suit Injunctions and the European Court of Justice” (2007) 73 Arbitration
348.
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。