We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
08 October 2019
A party's attempt to circumvent a jurisdiction clause by bringing tortious claims against a third party has been thwarted by the High Court.(1) In granting an anti-suit injunction, the court explored the substance of the claims and found them to be "vexatious and oppressive", designed simply to evade the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
The claim centred on a series of contracts relating to the chartering of a vessel. The charter itself contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
A portion of the cargo (oil) carried by the vessel was detained by Chinese Customs on the grounds that (contrary to what was stated in the shipping documents) the cargo had not originated in the Philippines. The events unfolded as follows:
The court summarised the law applicable to the grant of anti-suit injunctions. In broad terms, an anti-suit injunction is a discretionary remedy granted by the English courts on two main grounds:
The court set out the following three-step approach to determine whether a contracting party could enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause, by an anti-suit injunction, so as to prevent tort proceedings by the other contracting party against a third party:
Given that there was no contractual basis on which to grant the anti-suit injunction in the present case, were the tortious claims against Gunvor (a third party) vexatious and oppressive in relation to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charter? If so, was Clearlake entitled to an anti-suit injunction to prevent these claims from proceeding in Singapore?
On the facts, the court found that Xiang Da had manipulated its third-party claims to try to avoid being caught by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Clearlake charter. The alleged misrepresentation was in fact contained in an email from Clearlake, not Gunvor. The claim against Gunvor rested on the misrepresentation being passed via Clearlake. If Gunvor was found liable for misrepresentation, it was hard to see why Clearlake would not also be liable. In the circumstances, it would normally be expected for Clearlake to be sued for misrepresentation as well, and the appropriate forum to sue Clearlake would be England.
Given the above, the court found that the bringing of a tortious claim solely against Gunvor in Singapore and not against Clearlake was a procedural manoeuvre designed to evade the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
This precise type of procedural manoeuvre may not have previously triggered an anti-suit injunction. Nevertheless, the court was prepared to grant an injunction in this case. In doing so, it emphasised that the categories of conduct which may be deemed vexatious or oppressive should not be regarded as closed.
This case demonstrates the courts' willingness to look into the substance of an impugned foreign claim in order to assess whether it is in fact a tactic designed to evade an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On that basis, claims which are ostensibly framed as falling outside the ambit of a jurisdiction clause may nevertheless be deemed vexatious or oppressive.
Further, the sort of conduct which may be regarded as vexatious or oppressive is not closed. To this end, parties must bear in mind that any litigation tactic in foreign proceedings which is designed to circumvent a jurisdiction clause may similarly give rise to an anti-suit injunction.
For further information on this topic please contact Chris Ross or Kirtan Prasad at RPC by telephone (+44 20 3060 6000) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The RPC website can be accessed at www.rpc.co.uk.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.