In August 2000, the vessel Front Comor, owned by West Tankers Inc. (“WT”), and chartered by Erg Petroli S.p.A. (“Erg”), collided with a jetty owned by Erg in Syracuse (Italy).
This incident triggered a complex series of legal disputes involving multiple aspects of maritime and insurance law, raising significant cross-border procedural issues.
Erg initiated arbitration proceedings in London against WT for the portion of the damage not covered by its insurers, relying on the arbitration clause in the charter party.
Meanwhile, the insurers, having subrogated Erg for the portion of damages they had indemnified, filed a court action before the Tribunal of Syracuse against WT to recover the sums paid to Erg.
WT objected to the jurisdiction of the Italian court, invoking the arbitration clause in the charter party. At the same time, WT applied to the High Court of Justice (UK) requesting:
- A declaration that the dispute between WT and the insurers must be submitted to arbitration, and
- An anti-suit injunction, prohibiting the insurers from pursuing any proceedings before ordinary courts.
The High Court granted the request and issued the anti-suit injunction against the insurers. The insurers then appealed the decision to the House of Lords, which, due to the potential conflict with Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) for a preliminary ruling.
The European Court, emphasizing the principle of mutual trust among Member States’ legal systems and judicial institutions—an essential pillar of the European judicial area—ruled that:
“The grant of an anti-suit injunction by a court of a Member State, restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would breach an arbitration agreement, is incompatible with Regulation No. 44/2001.”
(Case C-185/07)
It is noteworthy that, today, Brexit has revived the use of anti-suit injunctions in English procedural practice—a tool that, at least within the EU framework, had been significantly curtailed by the CJEC’s ruling in this case.
