Goshawk Dedicated Ltd v ROP Inc

Where a contract contains an English arbitration clause, the court should hold the parties to their bargain unless the party resisting an anti-suit injunction shows good reason for refusing relief. A foreign proceeding is not justified merely because related parties or issues may be litigated abroad. Possible overlap, witness location, document availability and increased expense must be assessed in the contractual and commercial context. A request for an extension of time in related foreign proceedings does not, without more, amount to voluntary submission to that court’s jurisdiction over the contractual dispute. An injunction may restrain both the foreign proceeding and an application seeking to restrain the agreed arbitration.

Goshawk, the sole member of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2021, sought continuation of an interim anti-suit injunction against ROP. The injunction restrained ROP from intervening in related proceedings in the Federal Court in Georgia and from seeking there an order preventing Goshawk from pursuing London arbitration.

Goshawk contended that ROP was bound by a policy containing an English-law and London arbitration clause following a novation. ROP relied on related proceedings, alleged voluntary submission to the Georgia court, convenience, expense and the risk of inconsistent decisions. The central issue was whether the injunction should continue.

1. Relief granted. The court continued the anti-suit injunction and restrained ROP from pursuing its own anti-arbitration application in the Federal Court in Georgia. The parties were required to arbitrate their dispute in accordance with the contractual arrangements. The parties were to address the form of order and costs.
2. Goshawk had a very strong arguable case that ROP contracted on the policy terms, including the English-law and London arbitration provisions. The policy had been placed through a London Lloyd’s broker, and England was a natural forum for disputes involving Lloyd’s market practice, non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
3. Because ROP appeared to be seeking to avoid an agreed forum in favour of a forum of its choice, it was necessary for ROP to show good reason why an injunction should not be granted. The existence of related proceedings against PSCI and SFSC did not make Goshawk’s position against ROP inconsistent. There was some possible overlap, but not such overlap as justified refusing relief.
4. Goshawk’s request for an extension of time to respond to ROP’s proposed intervention did not amount to voluntary submission to the Georgia court’s jurisdiction over the Goshawk–ROP dispute. The argument was described as thin and the conduct was treated as an attempted evasion of the contractual commitment.
5. The location of witnesses and documents did not provide a sufficient reason to refuse relief. The parties would have known when contracting that disputes involving misrepresentation and non-disclosure might be arbitrated in England. Convenience to ROP alone was not decisive.
6. The injunction was necessary and desirable. There was no sensible half-way course in which ROP could pursue its anti-arbitration application while avoiding its contractual commitment. The court did not seek to control whether the Federal Court proceeded with the separate PSCI action.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no appeal.