Mahmood Jasim Zeboon Alsaady v Ali Al Hamadani & Ors

An anti-suit injunction may restrain a party subject to the English court’s personal jurisdiction from pursuing foreign proceedings where they are vexatious or oppressive and intervention is necessary in the interests of justice.

Parallel proceedings are not automatically vexatious or oppressive. Relevant considerations include whether England is the natural forum, whether the foreign proceedings relitigate matters already determined or undermine the English court’s process, the availability of any legitimate juridical advantage abroad, and international comity. A claimant who voluntarily litigates in England and then commences overlapping proceedings abroad after an adverse result presents a particularly strong case for relief.

The claimant had brought extensive partnership, bailment, deceit, misrepresentation and conspiracy claims in England against members of the Al Hamadani family and associated entities. At trial before Rajah J, the claims were dismissed apart from an order for an account between the claimant and Almaghir.

Before and during the English trial, the claimant commenced proceedings in Iraq concerning overlapping collections of artefacts, alleged partnership contributions and compensation. The first four defendants applied for an anti-suit injunction to restrain those proceedings. The central issue was whether the Iraqi proceedings were vexatious or oppressive and, if so, whether relief should be granted consistently with international comity.

1. The application was granted. The court had jurisdiction to restrain a defendant over whom it had personal jurisdiction from commencing or continuing foreign proceedings where this was necessary in the interests of justice. The governing principles were summarised in Deutsche Bank AG v Highlander Crusader Partners LP [2010] 1 WLR 1023.

2. A finding that foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive is an evaluative judgment. If that threshold is met, the court retains a discretion whether to grant an injunction, having regard particularly to comity. The categories of vexatious or oppressive conduct are not closed. They include proceedings which interfere with or undermine the English court’s control of its own process, or which could and should have formed part of an earlier English action, as explained in Elektrim v Vivendi Holdings 1 Corp [2008] EWCA Civ 1178; [2009] 2 All ER (Comm).

3. The claimant had chosen to litigate in England and had then commenced overlapping proceedings in Iraq after substantially losing in England. This conduct gave rise to a strong case that the Iraqi proceedings were vexatious or oppressive and sought a second determination of matters connected with the English litigation. The court applied the reasoning in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No 3) [2008] EWCA Civ 625, including the power to protect the integrity of English proceedings and judgments.

4. Possible Iraqi public-authority concerns relating to cultural heritage might have affected both the vexation analysis and comity. However, the claimant adduced no evidence establishing those matters. They did not assist claims concerning payments or the terms of the partnership, which were unlikely to have been compelled by Iraqi authorities.

5. The injunction was ordered in broadly the applicants’ proposed terms. The applicants were awarded the costs of the application and the earlier hearing, to be assessed summarily on paper. Indemnity costs were refused because the claimant’s conduct was not out of the norm.

The judgment records that Rajah J had previously dismissed the claimant’s substantive claims, save for an order for an account between the claimant and Almaghir. This was a first-instance application for an anti-suit injunction in related proceedings.