CB (Financial Remedies: Antisuit injunction), Re

An anti-suit injunction is an equitable remedy governed by Supreme Courts Act 1981, section 37. In an alternative-forum case, the applicant must establish personal jurisdiction, a sufficient English connection, and foreign proceedings that are vexatious, oppressive or otherwise unconscionable. The court must then exercise its discretion with caution, having regard to comity and all the circumstances.

England must ordinarily be shown to be the natural forum, assessed by the parties’ and dispute’s substantial connecting factors. The fact that foreign proceedings began first is not determinative. The application was refused because the English proceedings were not shown to be vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable, and the circumstances did not make an injunction just and convenient.

The applicant, VC, sought an anti-suit injunction restraining DB from pursuing proceedings in India concerning child maintenance and matters arising from the parties’ marriage. The children were joined and represented through the Official Solicitor. The parties and children had Indian connections, but lived or were habitually resident in England, where the principal family assets, schools, income and related financial-remedy proceedings were situated.

The court considered its jurisdiction, whether England and Wales was the natural forum, DB’s conduct in pursuing Indian litigation, and whether an injunction should be granted under section 37 of the Supreme Courts Act 1981.

1. Application dismissed. The court had personal jurisdiction over the respondents. The fact that the Indian child-maintenance proceedings pre-dated the English proceedings did not determine jurisdiction.
2. This was an alternative-forum case. The court respected India’s sovereign authority to apply its own laws to Hindu parents and children. The English court nevertheless had to determine whether England and Wales had sufficient interest and connection to justify intervention.
3. England and Wales was the natural forum. The parties and children were habitually resident in England at the material times. The former matrimonial home, the children’s schools, the principal income sources and the main financial litigation were centred there. The Indian familial and business connections, and the Indian proceedings concerning land and extended family members, were relevant factors but did not outweigh the English connections.
4. DB’s pursuit of child-maintenance proceedings in India was understandable but ill-advised. It was not, in the circumstances, vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable. The court also took account of VC’s own conduct, including delay in seeking the injunction and lack of corroboration for assertions about discontinuing Indian proceedings.
5. Although it was unnecessary to exercise the discretion, the court held that the broad discretion under section 37 of the Supreme Courts Act 1981 did not support a conclusion that an injunction would be just and convenient. Comity was important, particularly concerning Indian land governed by local law. Any Indian maintenance award could be considered in the English financial-remedy proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
6. The court invited the Indian courts to consider staying or dismissing the child-maintenance application, while emphasising that the decision remained entirely for those courts.

Not stated in the judgment.