• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • BMRI Business and Management Research Institute - to April 2016
    • Centre for Research in Law (CRiL)
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • BMRI Business and Management Research Institute - to April 2016
    • Centre for Research in Law (CRiL)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UOBREPCommunitiesTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsPublisherJournalDepartmentThis CollectionTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsPublisherJournalDepartment

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    About

    AboutLearning ResourcesResearch Graduate SchoolResearch InstitutesUniversity Website

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Anti-suit injunctions and arbitration: parasitic or free standing?

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Authors
    Seriki, Hakeem
    Issue Date
    2013
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Where a party amenable to the jurisdiction of the English courts commences proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, the English courts have always shown their willingness to injunct such a party. While such injunctions are seen as controversial, nevertheless they have been a useful tool at the disposal of the English courts. Over the years, English courts have demonstrated their willingness to grant anti-suit injunctions under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA) 1 so as to uphold the sanctity of arbitration agreements. In February 2009, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its much-anticipated decision in Allianz SPA v West Tankers Inc (The Front Comor) 2 where it ruled that the English courts could no longer grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to arbitration in EU cases.3 In 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs prepared a report4 on the European Commission’s proposal to amend the Brussels Regulation. The Report opposes the deletion of the arbitration exclusion in art.1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation5 and suggests the clarification of the point that judicial proceedings ruling on the validity of arbitral competence are excluded from the scope of the Brussels Regulation.6 The Report further suggests that art.31 of the Regulation should be revised so as to provide that no judgment should be recognised in Member States if the court concerned disregarded an arbitration rule of the State in which enforcement is sought unless the judgment of that Member State would produce the same result as if the law of arbitration of the Member State in which enforcement is sought had been applied.7
    Citation
    Seriki, H. (2013) 'Anti-suit injunctions and arbitration: parasitic or free standing?'. Journal of Business Law 3 pp. 267-283
    Publisher
    Sweet and Maxwell
    Journal
    Journal of Business Law
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10547/594477
    Type
    Article
    Language
    en
    ISSN
    0021-9460
    Collections
    Centre for Research in Law (CRiL)
    Law

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.