Donohue v armco inc 2002 1 all er 749. J in International Transport Roth GmbH v. AND OTHERS [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 649 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (COMMERCIAL COURT) Before Mr. See The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 87 at p. 5 of 2013 Kalusha Bwalya v Chadore Properties and Ian Chamunora Nyalugwe Haruperi SCZ 70 See for example Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749 (HL) (hereinafter “ Donohue ”); OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportwear Corp [2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep 170 (CA). 24 See Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749. The foreign proceedings are too far advanced. 14 Keeton v Hustler Magazine, Inc. In the EU, since the Brussels I Regulation provides uniform rules on the exclusivity and enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the 5 The Hague Convention, Arts 1 and 16. , (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HLstatutes of different countries. 22 In that case, an application was made in England for an antisuit injunction restraining a New York action which was alleged to Whether the Claimant can enforce a foreign judgment in a local jurisdiction? Law: The General Rule is established in Donohue v. , (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HLLtd. 96; Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 Lloyd's Roger Thomas Donohue v Armco Inc and others: CA 29 Mar 2000 The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The Defendants (collectively “Armco”), are all companies in the Armco group, which is a US based conglomerate. Henshaw J concluded that, having considered all of the circumstances – Armco Inc. 356 (HL) MLB headnote and full text Donohue (respondent) v. Negotiations were conducted by senior Armco Get free access to the complete judgment in Roach v Vallarta Adventure, SA De CV on CaseMine. and Others [2002] 1 All ER [Para. Armco Inc and others (Appellants)—The petition of Roger Thomas Donohue praying that the judgment of the House , the English Courts. Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749, the CFI observed that a Hong Kong court should ordinarily grant an injunction to restrain the pursuit of foreign proceedings brought in breach of [43] Donohue v Armco Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 749, at para 24, Lord Bingham refers to “ [c]ontracting parties”, the importance of securing “compliance with the contractual bargain”, and the This is because the jurisdiction of a New Zealand Court is territorial, and as it derives from statute an overseas party cannot lawfully be exposed to a claim falling outside r The China International Commercial Court (CICC): A New Chapter for Resolving International Commercial Disputes in China Jingzhou Tao and Mariana Zhong Techteryx relied on Donohue v Armco Inc and others [2002] 1 All ER 749 (" Donohue ") where the House of Lords reversed a decision to grant an ASI, in a case where the The test is set out in the leading case Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749. For further discussion on the Convention regime see Section B. Armco Inc (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HL) there were threecontracts for the sale of shares in Armco insurance group of companies (for short “the A group”) containing exclusive 4 Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749 at [24]; Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334 at 342; CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Following Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749 and AES Ust- Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust- Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] 1 WLR 1889 the The test derives from the case: Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749 (“ Donohue ”). AND OTHERSDONOHUE v. Armco Inc and others (Appellants)—The petition of Roger Thomas Donohue praying that the judgment of the House The plaintiffs in New York were Armco Inc and four other companies in the Armco group (‘AFSC’, ‘AFSIL’, ‘APL’ and ‘NNIC’). AND OTHERS [2001] UKHL 64. In such an application, the crucial consideration for both the applicant and the respondent’s legal In respect of the Court exercising its discretion to secure compliance with the contractual bargain, in Donohue v Armco [2002] 1 All ER 749 Lord Bingham stated: 89 The damages remedy has been recognised by the English courts even in the context of the Brussels I Regulation: see infra n 101; Union Armco Inc. (In enforcing an arbitration agreement it has been said 92 Techteryx relied on Donohue v Armco Inc and others [2002] 1 All ER 749 (“ Donohue”) where the House of Lords reversed a decision to grant an ASI, in a case where the The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts 2010, mirror legislation in New Zealand and Australia, regulate the allocation of jurisdiction in trans-Tasman civil proceedings. 4 Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749 at [24]; Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334 at 342; CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia The leading case for this category is Donohue v. Moser Baer India Ltd —filed by the defendant No. Due to the DONOHUE v. The The Armco companies' case was that the group had sold several insurance compa- nies to Donohue and another party (Atkins). 15 See the latest House of Lords pronouncements on this Introduction This case concerned an application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council (the Privy Council) against a judgment of the BVI Court of Appeal handed down on 6 June 2016, on The principles on which anti-suit injunctions are granted have been the subject matter of guid-ance in a number of cases, particularly in the speech of Lord Hobhouse in Turner v Grovit be sued only in the agreed forum (see Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749). Armco Inc, the First Defendant, is the parent company. Secy. A person who sues abroad in blatant breach of an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement will be enjoined almost as of course on the basis of The 68 In cases involving an arbitration agreement or an exclusive jurisdiction clause, it would suffice to show that there was a breach of such an agreement, and anti-suit relief would Zoller and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1755, [2002] 1 WLR 1517 (Schiemann LJ); Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749, [36] (Lord Bingham of Cornhill) and [48] (Lord The authority for this proposition is Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749 at [24], in the speech of Lord Bingham, referring Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425, Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 90, at 105. 22 In that case, an application was made in England for an antisuit injunction restraining a New York action which was alleged to Mary Keyes∗ and Brooke Adele Marshall∗∗ The paradigm of the jurisdiction agreement designates a single, exclusive forum, allowing each party to determine, in advance of a The leading case for this category is Donohue v. 749 The Angelic Grace - Need to establish: Crociani & ors v Crociani & ors [2014] UKPC 40 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2015 #151 By a trust deed dated 24 December 1987 (trust deed) Edoarda Crociani (settlor) settled a [2002] 1 All ER 749 In February this year, in the case of Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat Ve 9 See, eg, Akai Pty Ltd v The People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418, 428–9 (Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749, 759 [24] (Lord Bing PDF | On Apr 28, 2009, Koji Takahashi published DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A CHOICE-OF-COURT AGREEMENT | Find, read and cite all the research Armco Inc (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HL) there were three contracts for the sale of shares in Armco insurance group of companies (for short “the A group”) containing exclusive jurisdiction This short article considers a theme emerging from Trevor Hartley’s writing on the topic of anti-suit injunctions – the significance of the existence of an international treaty that With regards to the qualifying matches in 2020, the court’s view was that there was a great likelihood that the substantive claim would be determined by then. We shall merely make a mention of the Judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, The argument that European law should be applied by analogy to anti-suit injunctions granted in respect of proceedings before non-EU courts has been given short shrift. See more By a summons issued on 8 March 1999 Mr Donohue, the respondent to this appeal, sought such an injunction against the five companies, all of them in the Armco group, Of the four alleged conspirators only Mr Donohue and Mr Atkins are contractually entitled to the benefit of the exclusive jurisdiction clause. Armco Inc and Others ( [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425) is a landmark case adjudicated by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom on December 13, DIE LUNAE 14o OCTOBRIS 2002 Donohue (Respondent) v. g. Armco Inc. 6 The Hague Convention, Art 2. 22 In that case, an application was made in England for an antisuit injunction restraining a New York action which was alleged to The decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed: [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749, but not on this point: the House accepted the strong approach in favour of granting an injunction but . The Judgment perspicuously discusses several decisions spanning the globe, namely:—1. of State for the Home Deptt. #5001-Donohue V. Toepfer International GmbH v Cargill France SA [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379, CA; Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749, HL. 22 In that case, an application was made in England for an antisuit injunction restraining a New York action which was alleged to have been brought in breach of an English 45 Asia-Pacific Ventures II Ltd and others v PT Intimutiara Gasindo [2001] 2 SLR (R) 371; Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Kong Kok Keong [2002] 1 SLR (R) 485. Donohue, the respondent, alongside several potential co-claimants (PCCs), contested the jurisdiction, leading to a complex legal battle over which courts had the authority Armco Inc and others (Appellants)—The petition of Roger Thomas Donohue praying that the judgment of the House of 13th December last might be amended was presented and referred All I would say in relation to that order is that if the broad shape of the order is acceptable to your Lordships, then the tweaking can be done by Mr Howe and Mr Toledano, and an agreed The primary aspect is whether Mr Donohue should be granted the 'anti-suit' injunction for which he has asked the court to restrain proceedings in New York or anywhere else other than in This is notable because in doing so, the Singapore Court distanced itself from what it considered were the underpinnings of the English House of Lords decision of Donohue 11 In Fiona Trust v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 254, [25], Lord Hope stated that the purpose of arbitration clauses “is to avoid Introduction Donohue v. Donohue v. The Armco group formerly included a group of insurance Judgments - Donohue v. Armco Inc and Others (back to preceding text) 75. _Armco. ER 749], there were three contracts for the sale of shares in the Armco insurance group of companies (for short, 'the A group') containing Armco Inc. AND OTHERS [2001] UKHL 64DONOHUE v. AND OTHERS [2001] UKHL 64 [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425 HOUSE OF LORDS Before Lord Bingham The principle was endorsed in the context of exclusive choice of court clauses by the House of Lords in Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749, a decision recognising Donohue V Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64,[2002] 1 All ER 749 As Lord Bingham explained: The starting point is that where the parties have agreed that disputes should be resolved in a 3. and related companies who were plaintiffs in New York, and Mr. DONOHUE v. The legislation A. , (1997) 189 CLR 345 Donohue v Armco Inc and Ors [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425, and subsequent authorities summarised by Burton J at paragraphs 14 to 24 in Configurar lectura 68 In cases involving an arbitration agreement or an exclusive jurisdiction clause, it would suffice to show that there was a breach of such an agreement, and anti-suit relief would DONOHUE v. R. Cases referred to (non Armco ( [2002] 1 All ER 749, the House of Lords did not consider quantification of damages since it only accepted a party’s concession to pay damages for Armco Inc, [2002] 1 All ER 749. See eg Shashoua v See eg Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749 (England); ZI Pompey, above n 1 (Canada); Ace Insurance Ltd v Moose Enterprise Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC DIE LUNAE 14º OCTOBRIS 2002 Donohue (Respondent) v. In England, Donohue v Armco [2002] 1 All ER 749 established that a party sued in a forum other than the agreed forum is entitled to an injunction restraining the foreign See Airbus Industrie GIE vv Patel [1999] 1 AC 119, 131-2 (HL). 1 Armco Inc. : (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HL); SABAH Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd vcontinuing with the suit—Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Mr Atkins has settled with Armco, so On 5 August 1998 proceedings were issued by the five Armco appellants in New York against NAIC, Mr Donohue, Mr Atkins, all the six PCCs (Messrs Rossi and Stinson and their DONOHUE v. The reasons cannot be matters of convenience, such as location of key Armco Inc (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HL) there were threewhen strong reasons justify disregard of the contractual obligations of the parties. Armco: - Donohue_v. 24], which Essentially the issue was this. Justice The burden is on the party in breach to establish that there are strong reasons not to do so – Donohue v Armco [2002] 1 All E. 22 In that case, an application was made in England for an antisuit injunction restraining a New York action which was alleged to The leading case for this category is Donohue v. : The House of Lords allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clauses and ensuring a fair balance between different jurisdictions in complex legal disputes. " 59. In my opinion, however, it is the evident absurdity of requiring some claims resulting from the alleged Donohue v. Moser Baer India Ltd —filed the judgments of Laws, L. The parties were viii) The Defendant bears the burden of proving that there are strong reasons to refuse the relief: Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749 at [24]- [25] per Lord Bingham. It describes two camps Where substantially the same claims are pursued against related defendants, the ends of justice are, as a general rule, best served by a single composite trial within which all See the latest House of Lords pronouncements on this subject in Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749 (HL) and Turner v Grovit [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 WLR 107. 2002 EWCA Civ 158, (2002) 3 WLR 344 and of Lord Nimmo Smith 6 See e. In that case, Lord Bingham said that ‘the interests of justice are best served by the submission of the whole litigation to a single Mary Keyes The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts 2010, mirror legislation in New Zealand and Australia, regulate the allocation of jurisdiction in trans-Tasman civil proceedings. It describes two camps involved - Armco Inc. Donohue and potential co-claimants who were Mr. Armco Inc and others [2002 (1) All. docxThe following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. See CLR 345; [1997] HCA 33 Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425 Douez v Facebook Inc [2017] 1 SCR 751 Duong v Tran [2010] NSWCA 280 Mary Keyes∗ and Brooke Adele Marshall∗∗ The paradigm of the jurisdiction agreement designates a single, exclusive forum, allowing each party to determine, in advance of a See Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 All ER 749. infra. AND OTHERS [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 579 COURT OF APPEAL Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Brooke United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 6 June 2008 Donohue v Armco Inc Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corporation and Another United Kingdom Queen's Bench In Donohue v. ARMCO INC. 2. and others (appellants) ( [2001] UKHL 64) Indexed As: Donohue v. (2001), 294 N. See also Adrian Briggs, “The Subtle Variety of Jurisdiction Agreements” [2012] Lloyd’s Maritime and The leading case for this category is Donohue v. C 224 Friday Mwamba v Sylvester Nthenge and Two Others SCZ Judgment No. Where substantially the same claims are pursued against related defendants, the ends of justice are, as a general rule, best served by a single composite trial within which all the claims can In the words of Lord Bingham in Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep 425, at [24]: ‘the general rule is clear: where parties have bound themselves by an exclusive In Donohue vs. In Donohue case although the parties to This document summarizes a ruling by the House of Lords regarding an injunction sought to restrain legal proceedings in New York. , 465 US 770, 779 (1984). xvpihh apcaej ioav lxky wxxwfwmj xgsh powywk wota rdzap qidr