Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T14:47:57.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

II. Antisuit Injunctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Extract

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Turner v. Grovit13 is of particular interest to all those struggling to identify the precise relationship between Community law and English law in the field of jurisdiction, and the extent to which the English court retains a discretionary control over its procedure. The Court was asked to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Spain. The claimant was employed as a Group solicitor for the Chequepoint Group of companies. He was employed by English companies within the Group, but was relocated to Spain to work at the premises of a Spanish member of the group (CSA). The ultimate owner of these companies was the first defendant, Mr Grovit. The claimant resigned because he felt that he was being asked to undertake activities that were unethical. He brought unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims before the Employment Tribunal in London. Shortly thereafter he was sent a letter on CSA paper purporting to terminate his contract. A month after the Employment Tribunal had determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, CSA brought proceedings in Spain claiming that it was the claimant's employer and seeking damages for breach of contract. There was evidence that the defendants had not provided full information to the Spanish court about the English proceedings.

Type
Current Developments: Private International Law
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

13. [1999] 3 All E.R. 616.Google Scholar

14. [1998] I.L.Pr. 485.Google Scholar