- Anti-suit injunctions and Article 4(1) of Brussels I (recast) (Gray v Hurley)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Was there a breach of Article 4?
- Other issues
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case deals with anti-suit injunctions and whether one is available to protect a person's right under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to be sued in the UK rather than in New Zealand. The court had to consider whether it was bound by earlier Court of Appeal authority, Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh McLennan (Services) Ltd, considered by several commentators to be wrong. The Court of Appeal in Samengo-Turner held that, what is now Article 22(1) of the regulation (dealing with employment matters), created a right that was capable of protection by injunction. The court held that this authority was not strictly relevant to the facts of the case and refused to grant the injunction. Outside the context of Article 22(1), anti-suit injunctions remain the exception rather than the norm. Written by Natalie Todd, senior associate at PCB Litigation LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial