PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – anti-anti-suit injunction – where there are eleven proceedings (the Greensill Proceedings) before this Court related to the purported issue of insurance policies and liability to pay amounts under those policies – where allegations of concurrent wrongdoing were raised against Marsh Ltd (an English company) and Marsh Pty Ltd (an Australian company) by respondents in the proceedings – where Greensill Bank AG foreshadowed joining Marsh Ltd to various proceedings – where Marsh Ltd and Marsh Pty Ltd applied to an English Court for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Greensill Bank AG from doing so – where basis of application was exclusive jurisdiction clauses contended to be contractually binding on Greensill Bank AG – where the English Court refused interim relief sought by Marsh Pty Ltd and mostly refused the interim anti-suit relief sought by Marsh Ltd – where Greensill Bank AG joined Marsh, and commenced proceedings against Marsh, in Australia – where the English Proceedings were then amended – where Greensill Bank AG seek interim anti-anti-suit relief to restrain Marsh Ltd and Marsh Pty Ltd from taking further steps in the English Proceedings – where the English Proceedings have been listed for final hearing for anti-suit relief – principles applicable to anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions – whether basis for injunction in implied and/or equitable jurisdiction – whether balance of convenience favours the grant of injunction – held: anti-anti-suit relief granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – implied jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue anti-anti-suit injunction – s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where there is a basis for exercise of the Court’s implied jurisdiction in the tendency of English Proceedings to interfere with proceedings in this Court – principles of comity applicable in considering exercise of implied jurisdiction – where principles of comity do not require refusal of relief – balance of convenience favours grant of injunction EQUITY – equitable jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue anti-anti-suit injunction – where there is a basis for exercise of the Court’s equitable jurisdiction to prevent vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings – not necessary to consider whether there is a basis for exercise of the Court’s equitable jurisdiction in aid of legal rights – where principles of comity do not require refusal of relief –balance of convenience favours grant of injunction
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca1241For more information, see the original judgement.
