Turner v Grovit
Under the Brussels Convention, an English court could not grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in another contracting state, even where they were brought in bad faith to frustrate English proceedings.
Facts
Mr Turner, a solicitor employed by a group of companies run by Mr Grovit, resigned and brought a claim for unfair dismissal in England, alleging that he had been asked to take part in unlawful conduct. A company in the group then sued Mr Turner in Spain, claiming damages for his alleged professional misconduct. The English courts found that the Spanish proceedings had been brought in bad faith to frustrate the English proceedings, and granted an anti-suit injunction restraining them. The House of Lords referred the question to the Court of Justice.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the Brussels Convention precluded the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a contracting state prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another contracting state, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings. Such an injunction undermined the court of the other state's jurisdiction to determine the dispute, and was incompatible with the principle of mutual trust between the courts of the contracting states, under which each court decides for itself whether it has jurisdiction. Following Brexit, the English courts are free again to grant such injunctions in respect of proceedings in EU states.
Related cases on jurisdiction agreements and anti-suit injunctions
- Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119
- Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc (The Front Comor) Case C-185/07, [2009] ECR I-663
- Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64
- Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871
Studying conflict of laws? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
