- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
An anti-suit injunction is a court order that prevents a party from initiating or continuing legal proceedings in another forum (usually a national court), particularly when those proceedings are in breach of an arbitration agreement. This injunction is often sought to ensure that the dispute is resolved through arbitration as agreed by the parties, preventing parallel court litigation or forum shopping. In arbitration, such injunctions are critical in protecting the integrity of the arbitration process and ensuring that both parties adhere to their contractual obligations to arbitrate rather than litigate.
The main purpose of an anti-suit injunction in the context of arbitration is to uphold the arbitration agreement and prevent a party from pursuing litigation in a jurisdiction other than the agreed arbitration forum. It ensures that the parties respect the contractual obligation to resolve disputes through arbitration and not through the courts. Anti-suit injunctions are generally sought when a party begins court proceedings despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Anti-suit injunctions are used to prevent one party from attempting to litigate in a jurisdiction that might offer a more favorable outcome (forum shopping), particularly when arbitration was agreed upon.
It protects the arbitration process by ensuring that a dispute is resolved as agreed, without interference from court actions in jurisdictions outside of the arbitration agreement.
The power to issue an anti-suit injunction typically resides with the courts of the country where the arbitration is to take place or where the award may be enforced. National courts may issue such injunctions based on the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (the arbitral tribunal's authority to determine its own jurisdiction) or as part of their inherent power to prevent abuse of the judicial system.
Many countries, like India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have laws that allow courts to issue anti-suit injunctions when one party initiates court proceedings contrary to an arbitration agreement. For instance, under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts can grant interim relief, including anti-suit injunctions, to preserve the arbitration process.
Anti-suit injunctions are generally granted in the following scenarios:
There must be a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.
When one party initiates legal proceedings in a court that is not specified in the arbitration agreement, and the other party seeks to have those proceedings stopped to enforce the arbitration agreement.
The party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that the ongoing or potential court proceedings will cause them irreparable harm, such as undermining the arbitration agreement, wasting judicial resources, or creating conflicting decisions.
When a party tries to litigate in a jurisdiction where the chances of a more favorable decision are higher, contrary to the arbitration agreement, an anti-suit injunction may be granted to stop this practice.
In international arbitration, anti-suit injunctions may also have cross-border effects. For example, a court in one jurisdiction may issue an anti-suit injunction to stop a party from pursuing litigation in another jurisdiction. While this may seem to overstep national boundaries, courts in many countries are increasingly willing to recognize and enforce anti-suit injunctions issued by foreign courts, particularly when they are based on an arbitration agreement.
The enforceability of anti-suit injunctions is not universal, and some jurisdictions may resist enforcing them, especially if they contradict the local public policy or legal framework. However, in many major arbitration hubs (e.g., London, New York, Paris), anti-suit injunctions are commonly granted and enforced.
While the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards focuses on enforcement of arbitral awards, it does not explicitly address anti-suit injunctions. However, many courts view these injunctions as part of the broader framework to protect arbitration agreements and avoid the judicial interference that undermines arbitration.
Anti-suit injunctions are not automatically granted and can be subject to challenges:
The party against whom the injunction is sought may challenge the jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction, particularly in international disputes.
Courts may refuse to issue anti-suit injunctions if doing so would contravene the public policy of the jurisdiction where the injunction is sought or where the dispute is being litigated.
Some jurisdictions may have laws that either limit or prohibit the granting of anti-suit injunctions, especially if such an injunction would conflict with their own domestic legal procedures.
Suppose two companies, Company A and Company B, are involved in a commercial dispute and have a valid arbitration agreement specifying that disputes will be resolved through arbitration in London. However, Company A files a lawsuit in the United States court, seeking damages for breach of contract, even though the matter is clearly covered by the arbitration agreement.
An anti-suit injunction is a powerful legal tool in arbitration that aims to protect the integrity of arbitration agreements and prevent parties from engaging in parallel litigation in violation of such agreements. While effective in many jurisdictions, its enforcement, particularly in cross-border disputes, can be complex and subject to judicial discretion. Courts generally issue anti-suit injunctions to preserve arbitration as the agreed method of dispute resolution, prevent forum shopping, and ensure consistent and fair resolution of disputes.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
