Worldwide: A Common Right To Arbitrate: Anti-Suit Injunctions In New York And England

An important consideration when drafting an enforceable arbitration agreement is the legal "seat," or juridical location, of the arbitration. Both London and New York have established themselves as favorable arbitral seats because of their willingness to compel and safeguard the efficacy of parties' agreements to arbitrate.

In its simplest form, an arbitration agreement is a mutual promise to resolve defined disputes through an arbitral process, rather than resorting to courts. This promise includes a positive obligation to submit the dispute to an agreed arbitral forum, and a negative obligation to refrain from commencing proceedings in a forum other than that specified in the arbitration agreement.1 While the positive obligation is addressed by a court's power to compel arbitration, the negative obligation may be effected through the grant of an anti-suit injunction in support of the arbitration agreement. The duality of obligations was reflected in Pena Copper Mines Ltd v. Rio Tinto Co Ltd (1911) 105 LT 846, in which the English Court of Appeal recognized "certainly an implied negative" in the arbitration agreement and ordered Rio Tinto to desist from Spanish court proceedings which were "contrary to their contractual duties."2

Anti-suit injunctions are equitable remedies that courts may grant to prevent a party to an arbitration agreement from avoiding its contractual obligation to arbitrate by pursuing claims in a foreign court.

Although the injunction applies to a specific party—and, hence, is not an order compelling action by the foreign court—it necessarily raises questions as to whether the foreign court should nevertheless decline to proceed with a case. This, in turn, highlights the balance between judicial competence and international comity that comes into play in the face of such injunctions.

English and New York courts historically have taken different views on the suitability of an anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration. Indeed, precedent shows that English courts have been more willing to grant antisuit injunctions in favor of arbitration than New York courts.3 The difference in approach appears to lie in disparate views of the role of international comity in deciding whether an injunction should be issued.

The 1994 decision, The Angelic Grace, arguably represents the highwater mark for English courts with respect to anti-suit injunctions.4 Prior to this decision, English courts generally held the view that anti-suit injunctions should be issued sparingly and with great caution.5 The Angelic Grace court, however, changed course. No longer was the court constrained by vague notions of caution; rather, it took a view that courts should provide robust protection for contractual agreements that reference arbitration in England. According to the court, the basis for granting an anti-suit injunction in those circumstances was "the clear and simple ground that the defendant has promised not to bring [a foreign suit]."6

During roughly the same time period, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in China Trade & Dev. v. M.V. Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1987), articulated a restrained path towards anti-suit injunctions involving arbitration agreements, grounded in considerations of international comity. The court held that since an anti-suit injunction "effectively restricts the jurisdiction of the courts of a foreign sovereign," it should be granted "sparingly" and "only with care and great restraint."7 As can be seen, New York courts effectively held the same view as the pre-Angelic Grace English courts.

The divergent approach of the English and New York courts continues today. In forming an arbitration agreement, parties should therefore consider whether an arbitral seat in London or New York will better meet a potential need to curtail a recalcitrant counterparty from attempting to avoid its obligation to arbitrate in favor of a local courthouse.

Position of the English Courts

If The Angelic Grace represented the high-water mark of English courts' robust disposition to grant antisuit injunctions, the water receded slightly with the 2009 case of Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. West Tankers8 In West Tankers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (as it is now known) held that courts of EU Member States were not permitted to issue anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration against a party that had initiated court proceedings in another EU Member State, because this was not compatible with the EU's Brussels Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments.9 (However, with the U.K.'s June 23, 2016 decision to "Brexit" the EU, the ability of English courts to issue anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration may well be restored. This change may however take at least two years while the terms of "Brexit" are negotiated.)

Although English courts continue to view anti-suit injunctions as essential to protecting contractual agreements that reference arbitration in England, West Tankers created a significant geographic impediment on the ability of English courts to issue anti-suit injunctions, leaving the whole of the EU exempt from this protective power. Parties should take this into consideration when selecting London as the seat of a potential arbitration, particularly if they can foresee being hailed into a local court of another EU Member State.

In practice, English courts have issued anti-suit injunctions in a variety of circumstances. For example, in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35, the U.K. Supreme Court held that the English courts could enjoin court proceedings in Kazakhstan where the parties' contract provided that disputes would be subject to arbitration seated in London, even though no arbitration had been commenced or was being contemplated. The court based its holding on the "negative aspect" of the arbitration agreement, finding that the anti-suit injunction was not necessarily limited to the arbitral proceedings themselves, but "for the purposes of and in relation to the negative promise contained in the arbitration agreement not to bring foreign proceedings, which applies and is enforceable regardless of whether or not arbitral proceedings are on foot or proposed."11 In reaching its decision, the court confirmed that the power of English courts to grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings in non-EU Member States was unchanged by West Tankers or the Brussels Regulation.

Similarly, in Joint Stock Asset Management Company "Ingosstrakh Investments" v. BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644, the English Court of Appeal affirmed that anti-suit injunctions could be issued against parties that were not signatories to the relevant arbitration agreement. BNP Paribas had obtained an antisuit injunction from the English High Court restraining a Russian company, Ingosstrakh Investments, from pursuing proceedings in the Russian courts in relation to a guarantee entered into between BNP Paribas and a second Russian company, Russian Machines. The guarantee in question was governed by English law and provided for arbitration seated in London. While troubled by the prospect of an antisuit injunction being granted against a non-party to an arbitration agreement, the English Court of Appeal accepted that if collusion between Ingosstrakh Investments and Russian Machines could be established, it would be unconscionable and vexatious for Ingosstrakh Investments to pursue the claims in the Russian courts as the "stalking horse" for Russian Machines.12 Having found such collusion, the court affirmed the antisuit injunction.

Though the AES and BNP Paribas decisions follow the positive approach to anti-suit injunctions contemplated by The Angelic Grace, an English court is still likely to consider the implications of an anti-suit injunction through the lens of international comity, particularly in circumstances where the injunction application is not promptly made. In Ecobank Transnational v. Tanoh [2015] EWCA Civ. 1309, the English Court of Appeal considered an application for an anti-enforcement injunction that was premised, in part, on the fact that the claims at issue were subject to an arbitration clause that provided for London arbitration. In denying the application, the Ecobank court emphasized that considerations of comity were of less importance where there was an arbitration agreement,13 but applicants for both anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions must act promptly since in both cases "the English court is interfering, albeit indirectly, with the working or output of a foreign court."14

Position of the Federal Courts in New York

Whereas the issue of international comity may not play a significant role in an English court's decision to grant an anti-suit injunction if there is a valid arbitration agreement,15 international comity plays a much more central, and potentially restrictive, role in U.S. courts, including the Second Circuit.

There is a split among the U.S. circuit courts about the appropriate test and circumstances for issuing an antisuit injunction. The split centers predominantly on the weight, if any, that should be accorded to international comity with foreign courts.16 Courts taking a "liberal" view of the issue have been reluctant to allow comity to influence their decisions. The Fifth Circuit, for example, has declared, "[w]e decline ... to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action."17 Instead, the "liberal" view focuses on whether the parallel proceedings are vexatious or oppressive.18

By contrast, courts adopting a more "conservative" view of the issue are inclined to consider issues of comity when confronted with an anti-suit injunction application. The Second Circuit's decision in China Trade reflects this view, and creates a twotier, multifactor test (the China Trade factors) that should be applied when courts evaluate the need for an antisuit injunction.

The first-tier or "primary" China Trade factors consider "(1) whether the parties to both suits are the same and (2) whether resolution of the case before the enjoining court would be dispositive of the enjoined action."19 Although satisfaction of these "primary" factors act as a condition precedent to obtaining an anti-suit injunction, they are not wholly determinative since the Second Circuit has held that, "due regard for principles of international comity and reciprocity require a delicate touch in the issuance of anti-foreign suit injunctions, that such injunctions should be used sparingly, and that the pendency of a suit involving the same parties and same issues does not alone form the basis for such an injunction."20

Thus, the "secondary" tier of China Trade factors comprises an additional five factors that may influence the Second Circuit's evaluation of whether discretionary considerations, including the Fifth Circuit's "vague and omnipotent notion of comity," should limit the court's ability to issue an antisuit injunction. They are: (1) the threat to the enjoining court's jurisdiction posed by the foreign action; (2) the potential frustration of strong public policies in the enjoining forum; (3) the vexatiousness of the foreign litigation; (4) the possibility of delay, inconvenience, expense, inconsistency, or a race to judgment; and (5) other equitable considerations.21

While all of the "secondary" factors should be considered, the first two— whether the foreign action threatens the enjoining forum's jurisdiction or its strong public policies—generally are given greater weight by the courts.22 For example, in affirming an anti-suit injunction as an appropriate measure to enforce and protect a district court's earlier judgment compelling arbitration, the Second Circuit has held that the "federal policy of favoring the liberal enforcement of arbitration clauses," which "applies with particular force in international disputes," supported the issuance of the anti-suit injunction.23 Similarly, the Second Circuit has held that continuation of a foreign suit threatened the enjoining court's jurisdiction and implicated strong public policy preferences.24 Further, the court held that foreign proceedings which threaten to undermine existing federal judgments are particularly vexatious, and "comity considerations, though important, have 'diminished force' when a court has already reached a judgment involving the same issues and parties." 25

Application of the China Trade factors has also applied where no arbitration agreement is at issue. In Eastman Kodak v. Asia Optical, 118 F. Supp. 3d 581 (2015), the court issued an anti-suit injunction based on an analysis of the China Trade factors in circumstances where the underlying protected action was a pending action in the Southern District of New York.

Overall, the circumstances giving rise to any anti-suit injunction application made in the New York federal courts must fully consider the China Trade factors and, in particular, the competing notions of international comity and the enjoining court's jurisdiction and public policy.

In sum, a party contemplating whether to seat its arbitration in London or New York faces different attitudes and restrictions on the availability of an anti-suit injunction. Whereas a London court is (currently) restricted to issuing anti-suit injunctions to enjoin proceedings outside of the EU, the positive view of protecting the sanctity of the arbitration agreement is a significantly favorable factor. With a New York seat, the courts approach anti-suit injunctions conservatively, but do so with an established test that favors protection of the enjoining court's jurisdiction and public policy of promoting arbitration, coupled with no geographic limitation on the court's power to issue an anti-suit injunction.

Footnotes

1. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant [2013] UKSC 35, at 21-28.

2. (1911) 105 LT 846, 850-852.

3. As discussed below, however, the ability of English courts to issue anti-suit injunctions has been constrained by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has ruled that anti-suit injunctions may not be issued by one EU Member State in cases where a parallel proceeding has been brought in another EU Member State.

4. Aggeliki Charis Cia Maritima SA v. Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87 (CA) (In Millett LJ's words, referring to anti-suit injunctions, the time had come for the English courts "to lay aside the ritual incantation that this is a jurisdiction which should only be exercised sparingly and with great caution.").

5. See, e.g., Sokana Industries Inc v. Freyre & Co Inc [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 57, 66.

6. The Angelic Grace, [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87, at 96.

7. China Trade, 837 F.3d at 35-36 (internal citations omitted).

8. Case No C-185/07 (2009); [2009] ECR I-663.

9. Regulation No 44/2001; anti-suit injunctions are also not compatible with the subsequent 2015 (recast) Brussels I Regulation 1215/2012/EU.

10. [2013] UKSC 35, at 46.

11. [2012] EWCA Civ 644, at 51, 57.

12. [2015] EWCA Civ. 1309, at 106.

13. Id., at 91.

14. See Deutsche Bank AG and another v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP (CA) [2009] EWCA Civ 725, at 50 ("An injunction to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause governed by English law is not regarded as a breach of comity, because it merely requires a party to honour his contract.").

15. The First, Second, Third, Sixth and District of Columbia Circuits have adopted a more "conservative" approach; whereas the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, and perhaps the Seventh Circuit, follow the more "liberal" approach focusing on whether the suit is duplicitous and vexatious.

16. Kaepa v. Achilles, 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996).

17. English courts also focus on whether proceedings before the foreign court are or would be vexatious or oppressive. See Deutsche Bank AG, [2009] EWCA Civ 725, at 50.

18. China Trade, 837 F.3d at 36.

19. Ibeto Petrochemical Indus. v. M/T Beffen,

475 F.3d 56, 65 (2d. Cir. 2007).

20. See China Trade, 837 F.3d at 35.

21. See Ibeto Petrochemical Indus., 475 F.3d at 64 (Courts and commentators have erroneously interpreted China Trade to say the Second Circuit only considers these two factors).

22. Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., 369 F.3d 645, 654-655 (2d Cir. 2004).

23. Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertanbangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 500 F.3d 111, 126 (2d Cir. 2007).

24. Id. at 126-27.

Previously published by the New York Law Journal on July 18.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.