Previous Page  207 / 522 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 207 / 522 Next Page
Page Background

practice, since the aim is to realize an arbitration agreement between

the parties.

In practice, parties who disregard the arbitration clause, or attempt

to pressure the other party may initiate parallel court proceedings in

breach of the arbitration agreement. Parallel court proceedings that are

initiated in breach of an arbitration agreement could frustrate the on-

going arbitration, since they use resources in time and expense, which

leads to re-litigating the same issue, as well as preventing the enforce-

ment of the final award of the arbitral tribunal

3

.

National Court Practices on Anti-Suit Injunctions

Court practices regarding anti-suit injunctions differ for common

law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.

English courts state that on the condition that they have jurisdic-

tion over the defendant, an anti-suit injunction may be granted if there

is a valid arbitration agreement, the application is made without undue

delay, the foreign action is not well-advanced, and there is no other

reason why the injunction should be granted

4

.

With regard to US courts, the standard to be met under the US

approach is the determination of “irreparable harm,” and the courts

take into consideration the stage of the foreign proceedings, as well as

the parties’ expectation to litigate in that particular court

5

.

On the other hand, civil law jurisdictions have considered anti-suit

injunctions to be an intrusion into their jurisdiction. For instance, in the

decision of

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

dated January 10

th

, 1996,

IPRax 245 (1997), the German court refused to serve a judgment of an

anti-suit injunction based on the public policy exception under the

Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial

and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

With regard to European Union Law, the European Court of

Justice (“the Court”) opined that member states should not issue

ARBITRATION LAW

191

3

Lew-Mistelis-Kröll

, p. 363.

4

Lew-Mistelis-Kröll

, p. 365.

5

Lew-Mistelis-Kröll

, p. 366.