A Dangerous Chimera: Anti-Suit Injunctions Based on a 'Right to Be Sued' at the Place of Domicile Under the Brussels Ia Regulation?

M Ahmed, ‘A Dangerous Chimera: Anti-Suit Injunctions Based on a “Right to Be Sued” at the Place of Domicile Under the Brussels Ia Regulation?’ 136 Law Quarterly Review 379, 2020

7 Pages Posted: 3 Jun 2020

Date Written: April 3, 2020

Abstract

This note examines the English Court of Appeal's decision in Gray v Hurley [2019] EWCA Civ 2222. It offers a pervasive critique of the untenable argument that the general rule of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation gives rise to a substantive right to be sued only in England and that this right is capable of enforcement by an anti-suit injunction. It will be argued that the previous decisions of the Court of Appeal in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723; [2008] I.R.L.R. 237 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828; [2015] C.P. Rep. 47 were themselves wrongly decided.

Keywords: Jurisdiction, Brussels Ia Regulation, Anti-Suit Injunction

Suggested Citation

Ahmed, Mukarrum, A Dangerous Chimera: Anti-Suit Injunctions Based on a 'Right to Be Sued' at the Place of Domicile Under the Brussels Ia Regulation? (April 3, 2020). M Ahmed, ‘A Dangerous Chimera: Anti-Suit Injunctions Based on a “Right to Be Sued” at the Place of Domicile Under the Brussels Ia Regulation?’ 136 Law Quarterly Review 379, 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3605745 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3605745

Mukarrum Ahmed (Contact Author)

Lancaster University ( email )

Law School
Lancaster, England LA1 4YN
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
246
Abstract Views
889
Rank
228,309
PlumX Metrics