Arbitration vs. Court Proceedings: When Anti-Suit Injunctions Come Under Scrutiny

📂 Case Details

Case Title: West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and others [2007] UKHL 4

Court(s):

• House of Lords (UK)

• Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)
  Date: Judgment by ECJ 10 February 2009 
  Legal Area: Arbitration – Anti-suit injunctions and interaction with EU Regulation on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments (Reg 44/2001)

Parties:

• Claimant/Respondent (in UK context): West Tankers Inc (ship-owner)

• Defendant/Appellants (insurers subrogated): RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA & Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA

⚖️ Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose from a maritime collision: a vessel owned by West Tankers and chartered by Erg Petroli SpA collided with a jetty in Syracuse, Italy. The charterparty included a London-seated arbitration clause under English law. The insurer (by subrogation) initiated proceedings in an Italian court to recover sums paid to Erg. Meanwhile, West Tankers sought an anti-suit injunction in England to restrain the insurers from pursuing the Italian proceedings, arguing that the arbitration clause required disputes to be arbitrated in London. 

The Legal Question

The central question was:

Can a court in one Member State grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in another Member State’s court when there is an arbitration agreement?

This required balancing:

• The contractual right to arbitrate (via an arbitration clause), and

• The jurisdictional regime of EU Regulation 44/2001 governing recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU Member States.

The Court’s Ruling

The House of Lords referred the question to the ECJ. The ECJ held that:

• Even where there is an arbitration agreement, if the subject-matter of the dispute falls within the scope of Regulation 44/2001, the validity and applicability of an arbitration agreement fall within that regulation’s scope. 

• Accordingly, a court of a Member State cannot issue an anti-suit injunction restraining another Member State’s court from proceeding. Such an injunction would undermine the mutual trust and autonomy of Member States’ courts. 

In short: the contractual right to arbitration did not give unrestricted power to national courts to restrain other Member State courts once the dispute fell within the Regulation’s reach.

Significance of the Decision

This landmark ruling had major implications for cross-border arbitration and court proceedings in the EU:

• The decision reinforced that anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration may be incompatible with EU law when proceedings are in another EU Member State.

• Parties and practitioners must be very careful when trying to use national courts to enforce arbitration clauses against proceedings in an EU state.

• It highlights the complexity of overlapping regimes: arbitration agreements, national courts, and EU jurisdiction/regulation frameworks.

What Businesses Should Know

For companies operating across borders and entering arbitration agreements:

• While arbitration offers key advantages (efficiency, party autonomy, confidentiality), there are limits when dealing with EU jurisdictions and Member State courts.

• Anti-suit injunctions should not be assumed to always be available — especially in intra-EU contexts.

• When drafting arbitration clauses or dealing with cross‐border litigation, pay careful attention to:

  • The seat of arbitration, governing law and jurisdiction of courts;

  • The potential for parallel court proceedings in different states;

  • The interface with regional regimes (such as EU Regulations) that may restrict national-court injunctions.