Airbus Industrie GIE v. Patel and Others

The House of Lords considered the circumstances in which an English court may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. The court held that, as a general rule, comity requires that the English forum have a sufficient interest or connection with the matter before it will grant an anti-suit injunction to interfere indirectly with the jurisdiction of a foreign court. Where England is not the natural forum for trial, the English courts should not ordinarily grant an injunction to restrain proceedings in one foreign forum in order to favour proceedings in another foreign forum. The decision emphasised the role of the forum non conveniens principle and recognised that anti-suit injunctions remain available in extreme cases but only with caution and respect for comity.

This appeal arose from litigation following a fatal aircraft crash at Bangalore on 14 February 1990. The six appellants, British residents of Indian origin, pursued claims initially in India and then proceedings in Texas against a number of parties including Airbus Industrie G.I.E. Airbus brought proceedings in India (Bangalore) and obtained a judgment and injunction there purporting to restrict the appellants from suing Airbus elsewhere. Airbus sought enforcement of the Bangalore judgment in England and an anti-suit injunction restraining the appellants, resident in England, from continuing their Texas action.

The procedural history was: Colman J. in the English High Court refused to enforce or recognise the Bangalore judgment and refused to grant an injunction (23 April 1996); the Court of Appeal allowed Airbus's appeal and granted an injunction restraining the appellants from prosecuting their Texas proceedings (31 July 1996; reported at [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 8); leave was granted to appeal to the House of Lords.

The principal legal issues were (i) whether English courts may grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings where England is not the natural forum for trial; (ii) the relevance of comity and of the forum non conveniens doctrine in that context; and (iii) whether the appellants' choice of Texas (with strict liability, punitive damages and contingency fees) made their conduct oppressive so as to justify injunctive relief.

The appellants made concessions that they would abandon any claim to punitive damages and to strict liability in Texas; however the House of Lords addressed the overarching principle first. The Appellate Committee, in a leading opinion by Lord Goff, reviewed the common law and comparative authorities (including Aerospatiale, Spiliada, Amchem and decisions in the United States and Australia) and concluded that comity requires a sufficient connection between the English forum and the dispute before indirect interference with a foreign court will be justified. The court held that the absence of effective injunctive power by the natural forum (India) did not entitle the English courts to act in its stead. Applying that principle, the House of Lords allowed the appellants' appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's injunction and restored the High Court decision refusing relief. The Lords noted that anti-suit injunctions remain available in extreme cases but should be used sparingly and with proper regard to comity and the natural forum analysis.

Relief sought: enforcement of an Indian (Bangalore) judgment and an anti-suit injunction restraining the appellants from pursuing proceedings in Texas. Issues framed: scope of anti-suit injunction jurisdiction; relevance of forum non conveniens and comity; proper exercise of discretion. Reasoning: English courts will usually only grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings where the English forum has the closest connection or is an appropriate forum; mere inability of the natural forum to restrain the foreign proceedings does not justify intervention by an unrelated jurisdiction.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords held that comity generally requires the English forum to have a sufficient interest or connection with the dispute before granting an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in a foreign court. Where England is not the natural forum, the English court should not ordinarily restrain proceedings in one foreign jurisdiction to favour another. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's injunction and restored the High Court's refusal to grant relief.

High Court (Colman J.) refused to enforce the Bangalore judgment and refused to grant an anti-suit injunction (23 April 1996). Court of Appeal allowed Airbus's appeal and granted an injunction restraining the appellants from prosecuting proceedings in Texas (31 July 1996; reported [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 8). Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted and the House of Lords allowed the appellants' appeal on 2 April 1998 ([1998] UKHL 12).