http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/dickinson-on-west-tankers-another-one-bites-the-dust/ News and Views in Private International Law Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:33:28 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/dickinson-on-west-tankers-another-one-bites-the-dust/comment-page-1/#comment-159597 Antonin I. Pribetic Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:20:10 +0000 http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/dickinson-on-west-tankers-another-one-bites-the-dust/#comment-159597 The aphorism "missing the forest for the trees" is apt in the West Tankers/Front Comor case. Neither Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion, nor the ECJ addressed the fundamental, if not trite, proposition that the granting of an anti-suit injunction by a court in a Member State, restraining foreign proceedings commenced by the same litigant in another Member State (whether in contravention of an arbitration agreement or parallel proceedings) is premised upon the theory that "the court is not purporting to control a foreign tribunal but merely exercising personal jurisdiction over the litigants." (Robert J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, 3rd Ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1992) at pp. 5-26 to 5-27). The aphorism “missing the forest for the trees” is apt in the West Tankers/Front Comor case. Neither Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion, nor the ECJ addressed the fundamental, if not trite, proposition that the granting of an anti-suit injunction by a court in a Member State, restraining foreign proceedings commenced by the same litigant in another Member State (whether in contravention of an arbitration agreement or parallel proceedings) is premised upon the theory that “the court is not purporting to control a foreign tribunal but merely exercising personal jurisdiction over the litigants.” (Robert J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, 3rd Ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1992) at pp. 5-26 to 5-27).

]]>