Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel

An English court should not ordinarily restrain proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction unless England has a sufficient interest in, or connection with, the dispute to justify the indirect interference with the foreign court. In an alternative-forum case, this generally requires England to be the natural forum.

The defendant’s amenability to English jurisdiction is insufficient. Nor may the English court intervene merely because the natural forum is unable to restrain the foreign proceedings. Comity requires anti-suit relief to be exercised cautiously, although exceptional foreign conduct may remove the usual constraint.

Following an air crash in Bangalore, British passengers and representatives of deceased passengers sued the aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, in Texas. Airbus commenced proceedings in India and later sought relief in England against the English-resident claimants. Colman J refused both to recognise or enforce the Bangalore judgment and to restrain the Texas proceedings.

The Court of Appeal, in Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 8, allowed Airbus’s appeal and granted an anti-suit injunction, holding that India was the natural forum and that the Texas proceedings were oppressive. The claimants appealed. The central issue was whether an English court could restrain proceedings between foreign jurisdictions when England had no relevant connection with the substantive dispute beyond the claimants’ presence and amenability to its jurisdiction.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Goff of Chieveley delivered the leading speech. Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton agreed with his reasons. The injunction granted by the Court of Appeal was set aside.
2. Per Lord Goff, the broad equitable jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction is exercised when the ends of justice require it, commonly where foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive. Comity nevertheless requires caution because an injunction against a litigant indirectly interferes with a foreign court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
3. As a general rule in cases of the relevant kind, comity requires the English forum to possess a sufficient interest in, or connection with, the matter. In an alternative-forum case, this entails considering whether England is the natural forum. The principle should not be applied rigidly. An extreme case, including foreign state conduct depriving that state of the respect ordinarily required by comity, may fall outside the general limitation.
4. England had no interest in or connection with the substantive dispute merely because the claimants resided here and could effectively be restrained by an English injunction. India was the natural forum, but the inability of the Indian courts to restrain the claimants did not entitle the English courts to act in their place. Only the courts of an interested jurisdiction could intervene.
5. Texas’s absence, at the material time, of a forum non conveniens doctrine did not make English intervention consistent with comity. That doctrine was not universally accepted, particularly in civil law jurisdictions.
6. Because the injunction failed at this threshold stage, the House did not determine oppression or review the Court of Appeal’s interference with Colman J’s discretion. The appeal was allowed with costs in the House and below. The claimants’ proposed undertakings to abandon punitive damages and strict liability therefore did not govern the order.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the claimants’ appeal unanimously and set aside the anti-suit injunction granted by the Court of Appeal: Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119.
2. Court of Appeal: Allowed Airbus’s appeal from Colman J and restrained the claimants from continuing the Texas proceedings: [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 8.
3. High Court: Colman J refused to recognise or enforce the Bangalore judgment and refused an anti-suit injunction. Airbus appealed only the refusal of injunctive relief.