英语论文网

Find out more
•代写留学生论文 Find Related Cases
• Find Related Commentary
HOUSE OF LORDS
LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY, LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY, LORD STEYN, LORD CLYDE AND LORD HUTTON

24, 25 NOVEMBER 1997, 2 APRIL 1998
Conflict of laws – Foreign proceedings – Restraint of foreign proceedings – Circumstances in which court will restrain prosecution of foreign proceedings – Plaintiffs seeking injunction from English court to restrain proceedings in Texas by English defendants arising out of aircraft crash in India – Proceedings commenced also in India – Injunction issued by Indian court ineffective as defendants not within Indian jurisdiction – Whether English court could grant injunction.
Following the crash of an Airbus A-320 aircraft at Bangalore airport, the defendants, who had been passengers on board the aircraft and were British citizens of Indian origin, commenced proceedings in India against the employers of the pilots and the airport authority. They also commenced proceedings in Texas against the plaintiff company, which were consolidated with similar proceedings brought by American claimants. Although there was, at the material time, no principle of forum non conveniens applicable in Texas on the basis of which they could seek a stay of proceedings in that state, the plaintiffs obtained from the court in Bangalore a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to proceed against them in any court in the world other than in India/Bangalore. The plaintiffs then issued an originating summons in the United Kingdom to enforce the Bangalore judgment against the defendants, and to obtain an injunction from the English High Court restraining the defendants, who were resident in England, from continuing their action in Texas on the grounds that the pursuit of that action would be contrary to justice and/or vexatious or oppressive. The judge refused the application, but the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and granted the injunction sought. The defendants appealed.
Held – As a general rule, before an anti-suit injunction could be granted by an English court to restrain a person from pursuing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction, comity required that the English forum should have a sufficient interest in, or connection with, the matter in question to justify the indirect interference with the foreign court which such an injunction entailed. That principle should not however be interpreted too rigidly, and in cases where the conduct of the foreign state exercising jurisdiction was such as to deprive it of the respect normally required by comity, no such limit was required in the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction. Since, in the instant case, the English court had no interest in, or connection with, the matter in question, and the defendants had not appealed from the judge's decision not to enforce the judgment of the Indian court, but were relying simply on the English court's power to grant an injunction, the court could not grant the injunction sought because it would be inconsistent with the principles of comity. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and the injunction granted by the Court of Appeal set aside (see p 269 a b, p 270 c d j and p 271 c g to j, post).
[1998] 2 All ER 257 at 258
Notes
For general principles governing an injunction to restrain foreign proceedings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。