The Availability Of Anti-Suit Relief, Despite Delay (Specialised Vessel Services Ltd v MOP Marine Nigeria Ltd)

• Published date: 05 March 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
• Law Firm: Quadrant Chambers
• Author: Ms Saira Paruk

This article was first published by Lexis'PSL on 24 February 2021.

Mini-summary

The acknowledged starting point when seeking anti-suit injunctive relief is you must act promptly, but is that the whole story? In a case where a party waited approximately a year to bring a claim for injunctive relief to the English High Court, Mr Justice Calver granted it. The case highlights the factors on which a party can rely to counter an argument that there has been delay. The case also considers the effect on the exercise of the Court's discretion of the Defendant having obtained an injunction abroad in breach of an exclusive arbitration agreement.

Specialised Vessel Services Ltd v MOP Marine Nigeria Ltd [2021] EWHC 333 (Comm)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The judgment re-emphasises the principles found in the case law on delay. However, the outcome reminds us that delay should not be looked at in isolation. The case shows that despite the strong words in the previous cases about delay, there are certain factors which ameliorate the position for claimants. This was a common sense approach, allowing parties to consider the best approach in all the circumstances.

The case sets out with some precision relevant factors which the Court considered justified or tempered the effect of the delay, namely that:

• The foreign proceedings had not progressed very much in the intervening period, so no prejudice had been suffered by the defendant.
• The foreign court had not engaged with the substantive merits of the case.
• Any resources wasted by the foreign court had been minimal and only in relation to the jurisdictional issues.
• Foreign law advice had suggested that there was a good chance of dealing with the matter quickly and efficiently in the foreign court.
• The English Court was not being asked to second guess any decision of the foreign court.

So, if a party chooses not to bring a claim for injunctive relief immediately after being served with foreign proceedings in breach of an arbitration or jurisdiction clause, relief may still be granted if they can show good reason for the approach taken. Parties should consider these factors when choosing how to proceed and if and when an application for injunctive relief is made, consideration of these issues needs to be evidenced. In particular, evidence of positive foreign law advice that approach taken is justified, should be obtained.

It should be noted, however, that in this case, the delays experienced by the...