ADD NEW NOTE NOTE 95a AFTER “The Principles upon which relief is now granted may be summarised as follows”.

NOTE 91: ADD: An English court may not restrain the commencement or continuation of proceedings in another state which is party to the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, other than in the exceptional cases listed at Art.28 of that convention: see Turner v Grovitt [2005] 1 A.C. 101 (ECJ); also [2004] L.Q.R. 529 (Briggs). The barriers to the granting of an anti-suit injunction do not operate for matters outside the scope of the Brussels Convention however, so that an English court may grant anti-suit injunctive relief in support of an arbitration pending in England and Wales:  see Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v. New India Assurance Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1598.

ADD NEW NOTE 95a: These principles address both the existence of the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief, and the settled principles that apply where that jurisdiction is being invoked:  see Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd [2007] EWCA Civ 1124, at [7].For a different formulation of the principles, see Glencore International AG v Exeter Shipping Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 528, at [42]-[43].  For an application of these principles, see Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan [2002] EWCA Civ 1643, at [41] and [45] per Waller LJ; also Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading (above). 

NOTE 99: ADD:  See also OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation Ltd and others [2005] EWCA Civ 710.