Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd

An anti-suit injunction may be granted where England is the natural forum and foreign proceedings are vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable. England need not be the exclusive or only appropriate forum. A defendant need not previously have submitted to the English jurisdiction before foreign proceedings can be vexatious. Parallel proceedings are not inherently vexatious; the court must assess the circumstances. The English court may permit service out of an application for an anti-suit injunction where the application protects its jurisdiction and processes. The court may proceed ex parte where foreign proceedings create a real risk of judgment before an inter partes hearing can be arranged.

The claimant sought continuation of an anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing proceedings in Russia. The parties’ underlying dispute concerned guarantees of charterparty obligations. The charterparties contained London arbitration clauses and English-law clauses, while the guarantees themselves did not contain an express governing-law clause.

The defendant had commenced Russian proceedings seeking a declaration that it was not bound as guarantor. The claimant later commenced English proceedings for breach of the guarantees. The application concerned whether England was the natural forum, whether the Russian proceedings were vexatious or oppressive, whether service out was permitted, and whether the injunction should continue despite the claimant’s failure to disclose a later application made in Russia.

1. Anti-suit principles. Applying SNIA v Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871, the court held that an anti-suit injunction is granted where the ends of justice require it. The claimant had to show both that England was the natural forum and that the foreign proceedings were vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable.
2. Natural forum. The guarantees were governed by English law by an implied choice under article 3 of the Rome Convention. The close relationship between the charterers and guarantor, and the charterparties’ express English-law clause, demonstrated the parties’ choice. England was clearly the natural forum because the relevant documents and witnesses were substantially connected with England and the English proceedings would determine the whole dispute. Russian domicile and the apparent place of signature were insufficient to displace that conclusion.
3. Vexatious and oppressive proceedings. The Russian proceedings were probably commenced to frustrate determination of the dispute in England. Their unheralded commencement, after English arbitration had begun, and the apparent weakness of the guarantee argument strongly supported that conclusion. A prior submission to the English jurisdiction was not required. The concept of vexatiousness was not exhaustively definable. Parallel proceedings could exist without being vexatious, but the present circumstances were materially different.
4. Service out and procedure. The court had power to permit service out. An application for an anti-suit injunction was a “document in the proceedings” under CPR 6.37 and 6.38 and, if necessary, constituted ancillary relief protecting the court’s jurisdiction and processes, as explained in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International and others [2009] QB 503. Proceeding ex parte had been appropriate because the Russian court could enter judgment before an inter partes hearing in England.
5. The claimant ought to have disclosed its 1 November 2010 Russian application so that the court had the complete picture. That omission did not justify refusing continuation because the application did not amount to submission to the Russian jurisdiction and sought to prevent determination of the dispute there.
6. The anti-suit injunction was continued.

The judgment describes an interim anti-suit injunction granted by Christopher Clarke J on 15 October 2010. This judgment continued that injunction. No appeal is stated.