英语论文网

I. INTRODUCTION
An injunction to restrain foreign proceedings is probably the most powerful remedy available in an English court for dealing with a jurisdictional dispute. 留学生论文代写It is certainly the most controversial because the court is interfering with proceedings in another jurisdiction and no comparable remedy exists in civil law systems.1 The influence of European Community law has intensified the controversy because it has become increasingly doubtful whether the remedy is compatible with the scheme for allocating jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention2 (or its successor, the Brussels I Regulation).3 The House of Lords' decision in Turner v Grovit4 is an important development because their Lordships have made a reference to the European Court of Justice asking, 'Is it consistent with the Brussels Convention for the courts of the United Kingdom to grant restraining orders against defendants who are threatening to commence or continue legal proceedings in another Convention country when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly before https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/the English courts?' (The issue is probably identical to that which would arise under the Brussels I Regulation and references herein to the Convention are generally equally applicable to the Regulation).
The purpose of this article is to assess the future of anti-suit injunctions in the light of Turner v Grovit. This will involve the narrow question relating to proceedings in abuse of process, and also the broader issue of how far the remedy can be reconciled with the proper application of the Convention in other situations, notably proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Even if the decision is limited to an injunction restraining abusive proceedings, it will have an important impact in this area. If the ECJ decides that such an injunction is inconsistent with the Brussels Convention then there may be strong grounds for saying that the jurisdiction to restrain proceedings pursued in contracting states in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses5 is similarly incompatible. Even if the injunction is permitted the judgement is likely to throw further doubt on the broader use of the remedy, in particular if the ECJ identifies abuse of process as the sole justification for allowing it. Given the broad practical implications of the case and the fact that it may well take 2 years for the ECJ to answer the reference, the area merits immediate discussion.

II. TURNER V GROVIT: THE FACTS
Mr Gregory Turner was employed in 1990 as a solicitor for a group of companies involved in running bureaux de change. The first defendant, Mr Felix Grovit, an individual residing in both Belgium and the UK, owned the group. Mr Turner initially worked in London and was employed by various companies within the group and eventually by the second defendant, Harada Ltd, an Irish company registered in the UK. In 1996 Mr Turner wanted to move to Spain and it was agreed that he could do so but would continue with the same work under the same terms. After he spent a short time in the group's Spanish office the parties' relationship soured and in March 1998 he returned to the UK and commenced proceedings for unfair dismissal against Harada in an employment tribunal. Harada objected to the trib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。