Arbitration: anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement.Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association(Eurasia) Limited v New India 代写加拿大论文Assurance AssociationCompany Limited(2004) EWCA Civ 1598UK Court of Appeal2 December 2004Arbitration seems to have survived another ambush and lives on, possibly stronger than ever. Its latest escape isrecorded in a recent Court of Appeal decision in the UKand in a European context, but the general principles arejust as applicable in Australia and our region.The case is Through Transport Mutual InsuranceAssociation (Eurasia) Limited v New India AssuranceAssociation Company Li加拿大论文代写mited, sometimes referred to asThe Hari Bhum, the name of the ship carrying the cargo which disappeared and which gave rise to the litigation.The case is valuable because it gives us some, but not complete, clarity on how the courts will handle the situationwhere there are arbitration and Scott v Avery clauses in acontract, where one party wants the parties held toarbitration, but the other party has started and wants tobring or continue with court proceedings in a foreigncountry.Will the fo代写代写rmer be able to get what is called an anti-suitinjunction to restrain the latter from continuing with itscourt proceedings in the foreign court and drag him back toface the music in England or wherever the contractprovided?Equally, would that party be able to compel the other partyto abandon its foreign court proceedings and facearbitration where the contract provided?For a some years, the English courts and Englishpractitioners were faced with a major problem thrown upby two decisions of the European Court of Justice whenthey, the English courts, were deciding whether to grantinjunctions to restrain parties from continuing with foreigncourt proceedings.The cases in the European Court of JusticeThose two decisions, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISSAT Srl 1(Gasser) and Turner v. Grovit2, had decided that anti-suitinjunctions should no longer be issued in one jurisdiction,say England, to restrain a party from continuing withproceedings in another, say Spain, when the two countrieswere covered by the Brussels Convention on Jurisdictionand the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil andCommercial Matters of 1968,namely the Eur代写opeanCommunity countries.In Gasser, the European Court of Justice had held that anAustrian Court should not have issued an anti-suitinjunction to restrain a company from proceeding in anItalian court, even although the injunction had been basedon the ground that there was a clause in the parties’contract conferring exclusive jurisdiction over disputes onthe Austrian courts.This decision was based was on the ground that ‘mutualtrust and confidence’ had to be given by the courts of onecontracting state to those of another, ie by Austria to Italy.In Turner v. Grovit, the House of Lords had wondered if itshould issue an anti-suit injunction to stop a company fromcontinuing with proceedings in a Spanish court when theyhad been brought in that court vexatiously and to avoidproceedings in England.1 ECR C-116/022 (2004) All ER (EC) 485The European Court of Justice held that the House of Lordsshould not issue the anti-suit injunction and that to do sowould be against the Brussels Convention, even if theinjunction was designed to stop 。


仲裁：禁诉令限制外国法院违反诉讼程序一个仲裁agreement.Through，交通运输互助保险协会（欧亚大陆）有限公司诉新印度保险AssociationCompany有限公司（2004）EWCA CIV 1598UK的法院12月Appeal2日2004Arbitration似乎都活了下来，另一个埋伏和生活，可能比以往任何时候都强。其最新的逃生isrecorded在最近上诉法院的决定在欧洲范围内的UKand，但总的原则适用于澳大利亚和arejust区。案件是通过交通运输的相互InsuranceAssociation（欧亚大陆）有限公司诉新印度AssuranceAssociation的有限责任公司，有时也被称为作为哈日BHUM消失，引起了litigation.The的情况下是有价值的运载货物的船舶的名称，因为它给了我们一些，但不完整，清晰，法院将如何处理有situationwhere仲裁和Scott诉艾利条款在acontract，其中一方希望各方举行toarbitration的，但是对方已经开始，希望tobring法庭的审讯或继续在foreigncountry.Will前者能够得到什么是所谓的反suitinjunction同样，抑制后者继续在外国法院与itscourt程序，并把他拖回来的音乐toface在英格兰或在contractprovided的的？，党能够迫使其他弃权方放弃其​​外国法院的诉讼和合同规定的facearbitration对于一些年来，英语法院和Englishpractitioners的面临的一个主要问题抛出upby两个欧洲法院的司法whenthey，英国法院的决定，决定是否grantinjunctions的克制各方持续与foreigncourt proceedings.The情况的JusticeThose两项决定，埃里希·加塞联系诉MISSAT案SRL 1（加塞），·特纳诉Grovit2案，欧洲法院已决定，反suitinjunctions应该不再是一个司法管辖区发行，说英格兰队，以制止党的持续withproceedings的在另一个说，西班牙，当两个countrieswere覆盖Jurisdictionand布鲁塞尔公约“1968年在民事和商业事项判决执行，即EuropeanCommunity countries.In的加塞，欧洲法院认为，法院应该没有发行anAustrian反suitinjunction的约束，甚至虽然该禁令已经基于地面，有一个条款，在parties'contract授予专属管辖权争端强奎奥地利courts.This的决策是基于公司进行在anItalian法庭在地面上“互信和信心”给由另一法院的one​​contracting状态，即由奥地利到Italy.In特纳诉Grovit案，英国上议院曾想过如果itshould问题禁诉令停止公司在西班牙的法庭诉讼时theyhad被带到该法院无理取闹avoidproceedings在England.1 ECR C-116/022（2004）所有ER（EC）485The欧洲法院认为，众议院Lordsshould不会发出fromcontinuing反西装禁令和做sowould对“布鲁塞尔公约”，即使其目的是阻止theinjunctionü