The end of anti-suit injunctions?FeaturesEU/JurisdictionLouis Flanneryis a solicitor advocate at Howes Percival. Email: louis.flannery@howespercival.com© Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd 2004 Louis Flannery explains why a recent ECJ decision may have 留学生作业代写sounded the death knell for anti-suit injunctions● the facts in Turner v Grovit — from London to Madrid and back again● circumstances in which courts will grant an anti-suit injunctionLucky Felix Grovit—two pieces of good news in the space of a month. In the annual Sunday Times “rich list” issued last month, Mr Grovit found himself nearly 30 places higher than for 2003, with a net worth said to be £425 million. Then, on 27 April, a victory in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg—Turner v Grovit and Harada Limited and Changepoint SA (Case C-159/02), [2004] All ER (EC) 485.The jurisdictional threshholdThe jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings has traditionally been exercised regardless of whether the foreign court has had a chance to decide upon its own jurisdiction. It is not grounded on any pretension to the exercise of judicial rights abroad, but on the fact that the party being restrained is subject to the in personam (ie personal) jurisdiction of the English court. It is sometimes thought that such an order is directed against the party, not against the foreign代写留学生论文 court. However, although not directed against the foreign court, the order is bound to indirectly affect the foreign court. Accordingly, it has been commonly accepted that the power should be exercised with caution and only where the ends of justice so require.The requirement for in personam jurisdiction once meant the respondent to the order had to be either a British national or have assets in Britain, against which any order could be enforced. However, where the party against whom such an order is sought has agreed to bring proceedings in England—whether before the courts or by way of arbitration—the jurisdiction is assumed by their having agreed to submit to that process (Tracomin v Sudan Oil Seeds (No 2) 1983 3 All ER 140 (Court of Appeal)).Today, an anti-suit injunction (see BOX) or restraining order is most often sought in precisely such cases; ie where the foreign 'suit' has been brought in breach of an agreement under which proceedings must be commenced in the English courts or by way of arbritration in England.* * * * * *What is an anti-suit injunction?代写代写代写An anti-suit injunction is not a dress-down imperative. It is an order, issued by an English court, restraining a party from initiating or continuing foreign proceedings. The jurisdiction has been exercised by English courts for almost two centuries. The modern law is derived from s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. This provides that an injunction may be granted in any case where it appears to the English court to be “just and convenient” to do so.* * * * * *Forum non conveniensAn anti-suit injunction may also be made on the basis of forum non conveniens—that another court is more suitable. Even without an agreement expressly providing for any disputes to be brought before the English courts, the English court can hold that, in effect, England is the most—or only—appropriate forum. 

禁诉令年底？FeaturesEU，/ JurisdictionLouis Flanneryis律师倡导豪斯波斯富街。电子邮件：louis.flannery howespercival.com©励德爱思唯尔（英国）有限公司2004年路易·弗兰纳里解释为什么最近的欧洲法院的决定可能已经敲响了丧钟●禁诉令的事实在特纳v Grovit - 从伦敦到马德里和背部再次●在哪些情况下法院将授予西装反injunctionLucky的费利克斯Grovit两件好消息，在一个月的空间。每年星期日泰晤士报“富豪榜”上月发出，先生Grovit发现自己比2003年高出近30个地方，身家说到4.25亿英镑。然后，4月27日，欧洲法院（ECJ）在卢森堡特纳v Grovit和原田有限公司的Changepoint SA（案例C-159/02）的胜利，[2004] ER（EC）485.The司法管辖权管辖threshholdThe历来被限制外国诉讼行使，无论外国法院是否有机会决定自己的管辖。它不接地任何国外司法权行使的预紧力，但这样的事实，被克制的一方是在以个人身份（即个人）英国法院的管辖。它有时被认为是针对这样的命令党，不反对外国法院。然而，尽管不是针对外国法院，订单势必间接影响外国法院。因此，它已被普遍接受的电源应谨慎行使司法所以require.The要求对人管辖的两端，并且只有在一次意味着订购了后，答辩人是英国公民在英国或有资产，反对任何命令可以强制执行。然而，在寻求这样的命令所针对的一方已同意在英国提起诉讼，不论是在法庭或仲裁管辖的方式承担他们同意将其提交到该进程（Tracomin v苏丹石油种子（第2号）1983年3 ALL ER 140（上诉法院））今天，禁诉令或禁止令（见方框）是最常见的寻求的正是这样的情况下，即国外的“套装”已提请违约的协议，根据该协议，诉讼必须在英国法院的英格兰arbritration的方式开始。******禁诉令是什么？，一个禁诉令是不是礼服势在必行。这是一个由英国法院发出的命令，从外国程序的启动或继续抑制一方。英国法院的管辖权已行使了近两个世纪。现代法律是源于1981年最高法院法“第37。这提供了在任何情况下，它似乎是“公正和方便的”，这样做的英国法院可能授出禁制令。******论坛非conveniensAn禁诉令的基础上，也可以法院不方便，另一个是更合适的。即使没有明文规定在英国法庭被带到任何争议的协议，英国法院可以持有，实际上，英格兰是最或唯一适当的论坛。