联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
英国assignment代写,Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?
发表日期:2013-07-24 08:58:35 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写assignment > 英国代写assignment > 正文
Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?
I. INTRODUCTION An injunction to restrain foreign proceedings is probably the most powerful remedy available in an English court for dealing with a jurisdictional dispute. It is certainly the most controversial because the court is interfering with proceedings in another jurisdiction and no comparable remedy exists in civil law systems.1 The influence of European Community law has intensified the controversy because it has become increasingly doubtful whether the remedy is compatible with the scheme for allocating jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention 2 (or its successor, the Brussels I Regulation). 3 The House of Lords' decision in Turner v Grovit 4 is an important development because their Lordships have made a reference to the European Court of Justice asking, 'Is it consistent with the Brussels Convention for the courts of the United Kingdom to grant restraining orders against defendants who are threatening to commence or continue legal proceedings in another Convention country when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly before the English courts?' (The issue is probably identical to that which would arise under the Brussels I Regulation and references herein to the Convention are generally equally applicable to the Regulation).The purpose of this article is to assess the future of anti-suit injunctions in the light of Turner v Grovit. This will involve the narrow question relating to proceedings in abuse of process, and also the broader issue of how far the remedy can be reconciled with the proper application of the Convention in other situations, notably proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Even if the decision is limited to an injunction restraining abusive proceedings, it will have an important impact in this area. If the ECJ decides that such an injunction is inconsistent with the Brussels Convention then there may be strong grounds for saying that the jurisdiction to restrain proceedings pursued in contracting states in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses
5 is similarly incompatible. Even if the injunction is permitted the judgement is likely to throw further doubt on the broader use of the remedy, in particular if the ECJ identifies abuse of process as the sole justification for allowing it. Given the broad practical implications of the case and the fact that it may well take 2 years for the ECJ to answer the reference, the area merits immediate discussion.
II. TURNER V GROVIT: THE FACTSMr Gregory Turner was employed in 1990 as a solicitor for a group of companies involved in running bureaux de change. The first defendant, Mr Felix Grovit, an individual residing in both Belgium and the UK, owned the group. Mr Turner initially worked in London and was employed by various companies within the group and eventually by the second defendant, Harada Ltd, an Irish company registered in the UK. In 1996 Mr Turner wanted to move to Spain and it was agreed that he could do so but would continue with the same work under the same terms. After he spent a short time in the group's Spanish office the parties' relationship soured and in March 1998 he returned to the UK and commenced proceedings for unfair
 
禁诉令生存欧洲共同体法?
引言发出禁制令,禁止外国程序可能是最强大的补救措施在英国法院管辖权发生争议的处理。这当然是最有争议的,因为法院干扰在其他司法管辖区的诉讼,并没有类似的补救欧洲共同体法律的影响,加剧了争议的民事法律体系的存在,因为它已成为越来越怀疑是否有补救的方法就是兼容计划分配根据布鲁塞尔公约“2(或它的继任者,”布鲁塞尔第一条例)管辖。 3上议院决定在特纳v Grovit 4众议院是一个重要的发展,因为他们的上议院提到了欧洲法院的法官问,“是一致的布鲁塞尔公约”英国法院授予禁制令对被告谁威胁要开始或继续另一个公约国的法律程序时,这些被告的行为是在阻挠或妨碍诉讼程序正常在英国法庭的意图和目的,不守信用的?“ (问题可能是完全相同的,本文在布鲁塞尔我调整和引用下会出现“公约”一般都是同样适用于“规例”),这篇文章的目的是评估未来的禁诉令光特纳v Grovit。这将涉及滥用程序有关的法律程序狭窄的问题,同时也更广泛的问题多远的补救措施,在其他情况下,特别是诉讼仲裁协议管辖和专属管辖条款的违反“公约”的正确应用,可以调和。即使决定是有限的禁制令,要求禁止滥用诉讼程序,它会在这方面有重要影响。如果欧洲法院的决定,这样的禁令是“布鲁塞尔公约”不一致,则有可能是强烈的理由说的管辖权禁制法律程序追求缔约国违反排他性管辖权条款
5是类似不相容。即使禁令,允许该判决可能引发进一步的疑问,更广泛地使用的补救措施,尤其是如果欧洲法院允许它的唯一理由标识滥用程序。由于广泛的实际影响的情况下,事实上,它可能需要2年的欧洲法院回答的参考,该地区的优劣直接讨论。
二。特纳V GROVIT:格雷戈里FACTSMr特纳受聘于1990年,为一组运行局de变动涉及的公司作为一个律师。第一被告人,费利克斯先生Grovit,在比利时和英国居住的个人,拥有该组。特纳先生最初在伦敦工作,组内各公司聘用,并最终由第二被告,原田有限公司在英国注册的公司,爱尔兰。 1996年,特纳先生想移动到西班牙,并同意他可以这样做,但在同等条件下将继续同样的工作。之后,他花了很短的时间组的西班牙办事处,双方的关系恶化,并于1998年3月,他回到了英国,并开始不公平的法律程序