Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc

Where parties have agreed exclusive English jurisdiction, a party that pursues the same contractual disputes in a foreign court may be restrained by an interim anti-suit injunction. Once the opposing party has appeared in the foreign proceedings without submitting to that jurisdiction, continuing to pursue the foreign claim may breach the exclusive jurisdiction agreement and be vexatious and oppressive. Where the conduct threatens to subvert existing English proceedings, relief may properly extend beyond restraining the foreign claim. The court may require the claimant to consent promptly to a foreign stay application and may impose wider restraints to protect the integrity and priority of the English proceedings.

The claimant commenced proceedings in Singapore concerning contractual disputes already being litigated in London. The relevant Bareboat Charter, MoA and Addendum contained English governing-law clauses and exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of the English courts. The defendant appeared in Singapore while preserving its jurisdictional objections and applied for a stay in favour of the English proceedings. The claimant continued to pursue the Singapore claim and offered only conditionally to agree to a stay. The defendant therefore sought an interim anti-suit injunction, including orders requiring consent to the Singapore stay application and restraining further proceedings elsewhere.

1. Application granted. The court ordered relief in substance as proposed by the defendant, subject to any drafting points.
2. The contractual disputes raised in the Singapore statement of claim were substantially the same disputes being litigated in London. The parties’ contractual exclusive jurisdiction agreements required those disputes to be determined exclusively by the English court. After the defendant filed its Notice to Contest in Singapore, the claimant’s proper course was to procure an immediate stay there. Continuing the proceedings was therefore a breach of contract.
3. In circumstances where the same disputes were already being litigated in England, pursuing them to resolution in Singapore was vexatious and oppressive. The court did not need finally to determine whether the claimant’s explanations for commencing the Singapore proceedings were disingenuous.
4. The claimant’s conduct demonstrated and threatened an intention to subvert the English proceedings. There was a real risk that it would seek other means to achieve the same or a similar result unless the relief made clear that further conduct would constitute contempt of court.
5. It was just and convenient to require the claimant, within seven days, to consent to the defendant’s extant stay application in Singapore. It was also justified to restrain the claimant until further order in terms protecting the exclusive jurisdiction bargain and the integrity and priority of the existing English proceedings.