Specialised Vessel Services Ltd v MOP Marine Nigeria Ltd

An anti-suit injunction will ordinarily be granted to enforce an exclusive English arbitration agreement unless strong or good reasons justify refusal. Applications should be made promptly, but delay is assessed factually. Relevant considerations include the applicant’s justification, the progress of the foreign proceedings, prejudice, waste of judicial resources and comity. Delay caused by a genuine and reasonable attempt to resolve jurisdiction in the foreign court may not be decisive, particularly where the foreign proceedings have not progressed substantively and the respondent suffers no material prejudice. The existence of a foreign anti-suit injunction does not prevent relief where obtaining it breached the arbitration agreement. A mandatory order requiring discontinuance and declaratory relief may be granted where necessary to make the protection effective.

The claimant owned a vessel chartered to the defendant under a Bareboat Charter governed by English law and containing an agreement to arbitrate disputes in London. After a collision, the defendant commenced proceedings in Nigeria and obtained an injunction restraining the claimant and the arbitrator from proceeding with the London arbitration.

The claimant initially challenged the Nigerian proceedings and injunction in Nigeria. Those applications were delayed and remained unresolved. The claimant then sought a final anti-suit injunction, a mandatory order requiring discontinuance of the Nigerian proceedings, and declarations concerning the arbitration agreement. The defendant declined to participate in the English proceedings. The central issue was whether delay, comity and the existing Nigerian injunction justified refusing relief.

1. Relief granted. The court granted a final anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing the Nigerian proceedings, together with mandatory relief requiring their discontinuance. The declarations sought by the claimant were also granted.
2. The court had jurisdiction to grant anti-suit relief under Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37. Where parties have agreed an exclusive London arbitration clause, the court will ordinarily restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of that agreement unless strong or good reasons are shown.
3. Promptness is an important consideration. Delay is fact-sensitive and must be assessed alongside comity, prejudice, the extent to which the foreign court has engaged with the dispute, and the justification for the delay. The claimant’s year-long delay was not decisive because it had reasonably attempted to obtain a stay and set aside the Nigerian injunction in Nigeria, relied on positive Nigerian legal advice, and acted once it became clear that the process would not be resolved promptly.
4. The Nigerian proceedings had not advanced substantively, the Nigerian court had made no finding that the arbitration clause was invalid, and the claimant had not submitted to the Nigerian court on the merits. The Nigerian injunction therefore carried little weight in the comity assessment. Its procurement was itself an egregious breach of the arbitration agreement and an attempt to prevent the claimant exercising its contractual right to arbitrate.
5. A mandatory injunction was appropriate because a prohibitory order alone might not make the relief practically effective while the foreign proceedings and injunction remained in existence. The same considerations supported declaratory relief, which would assist enforcement of the English order and any arbitral award.