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

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
104
Abstract Views
336
rank
280,819
PlumX Metrics