英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心 我要定制

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

英国法院案例研究:arbitration

论文作者:留学生论文论文属性:职称论文 Scholarship Papers登出时间:2011-03-29编辑:zn1987点击率:4344

论文字数:1837论文编号:org201103291352559551语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:$ 22

关键词:arbitrationinternational business law

New Law Journal
View whole of

The rise of anti-suit injunctions
Arbitration
Khawar Qureshi
is a barrister at Serle Court, 6 New Square, Lincoln's Inn. E-mail: [email protected]
© Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd 2006
Khawar Qureshi explains how anti-suit injunctions underpin effective arbitration
●     restraining orders; the EU dimension
●     Turner v Grovit; The Front Comor

Where England is the seat of an arbitration, an application may be made to the English court for an injunction to restrain a defendant from pursuing proceedings abroad in breach of an arbitration agreement. This jurisdiction has been exercised since at least 1911 by the English courts on the basis that, in the absence of an injunction, the claimant will be deprived of its contractual right to have disputes settled by arbitration, in a situation 代写留学生论文where damages would be an inadequate remedy (see Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th Ed) (Vol 1) at paras 12–128).

It is the defendant—in respect of whom the English Court can exercise in personam jurisdiction—against whom the restraining order takes effect. It is not directed at the foreign court. In the context of arbitration, the anti-suit jurisdiction applies to the defendant who has promised, through the arbitration agreement, not to bring foreign proceedings (see Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA, The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87, per Mr Lord Justice Neill and Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1598, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 715, per Lord Justice Clarke, as he then was).

If the application is made promptly, the presence of a valid arbitration agreement may, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, militate in favour of the court exercising its discretion to grant an interim, or permanent injunction to stay the foreign proceedings.

Restraining orders
The failure to adhere to the obligation to arbitrate affords a different basis for the exercise of jurisdiction than the test of “wrongful conduct” or “unconscionable conduct”, which underpinned the development of the anti-suit jurisdiction by the courts of equity (see British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58, [1984] 3 All ER 39, per Lord Diplock). The power to make a restraining order is subject to various limitations, and is largely “inhibited by respect for comity” (see Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119, [1998] 2 All ER 257, per Lord Goff).
Thus the making of a restraining order does not involve a decision upon the jurisdiction of the foreign court but an assessment of the relevant party in invoking that jurisdiction.
The EU dimension

In the context of the European Union (EU), the English courts have interpreted the arbitration exception contained in the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (the Brussels Convention), Art 1(4)—now consolidated with other provisions in Regulation 44/2001/EC (the regulation)—as being concerned with any procedure before them which has arbitration as its principal focus (see Navigation Maritime Bulgare v Rustal Trading Ltd [2000], unreported, 8 August 2000, per Mr Justice Aikens).
On that basis, the “court first seized” rule in the regulation (Art 27) is not engaged because the foreign EU court will be exercising a jurisdi论文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。

共 1/2 页首页上一页12下一页尾页

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非