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
This note examines the English Court of Appeal's decision in Gray v Hurley  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  EWCA Civ 723;  I.R.L.R. 237 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd  EWCA Civ 828;  C.P. Rep. 47 were themselves wrongly decided.
Keywords: Jurisdiction, Brussels Ia Regulation, Anti-Suit Injunction
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation