European Court of Justice Turner v Grovit and Harada

102500 Anti-suit injunction is defined as “an order of the court requiring the injunction defendant not to commence or to cease to pursue, or not to advance particular claims within, or to take steps to terminate or suspend court or arbitration proceedings in a foreign country”1. The definition of anti-suit injunction claims that under this legal framework, none of the defendants or plaintiffs can take the assistance to obtain undue advantages of a foreign legislation apart from the country wherein the dispute took place. It is usually observed in case of cross-border disputes that the litigants perceive that they can take the advantage by shifting the proceedings in their home country, with the expectation to obtain a favourable judgement to the case ruling2. In order to disregard this belief of the litigants, anti-suit injunction has been introduced3.Arguably, anti-suit injunctions are often regarded as interference to the disputes in foreign courts. Addressing this particular issue, the discussion henceforth will evaluate whether the considerable of anti-suit injunction as an act of interference by a foreign court is justifiable. Illustrative examples will also be sought from various cases, including the landmark case of Turner v Grovit (C-159/02) [2005] 1 AC 101 in order to strengthen the rationalization of the arguments in this essay. The case of Turner v Grovit, decided in April 2004, is considered one of the landmark cases in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which apparent denotes the legislative implications of anti-suit injunctions to the principle of lis alibi pendens. This case became the basis for the explanation of anti-suit injunction as Turner, the plaintiff, was granted with anti-suit injunction, as a measure to restrict the application of the rule given in correspondence to the re-appeal of the defendant (i.e. Harald Ltd.) in the Spanish court4.&nbsp.