Anti-Suit Injunctions: Damp Squib or Another Shot in the Maritime Locker?

• Author: The Hon. Justice Hugh Williams
• Position: High Court of New Zealand
• Pages: 4-15

Frank Stuart Dethridge Memorial Address 2005

Address To The 32nd Annual MLAANZ Confe re nce

6 October 2005

‘ANTI- SUIT INJUNCTIONS: DAMP SQUIB OR ANOTHER SHOT

IN THE MARITIME LOCKER? ’

REFLECTIONS ON TURNER v GROVIT

Justic e Hug h Williams

Hig h C o urt o f New Ze a land

Introduction

It is a privilege and a pleasure to have been invited by MLAANZ to present this year’s Dethridge Memorial

address and to acknowledge, as did Justice Brian Tamberlin at the commencement of his 2001 Dethridge Address,

that:

The Dethridge Annual Address developed from a lifetime engagement and fascination with Maritime Law

on the part of Frank Dethridge. He is remembered and admired with affection and respect for having the

vision which led to the founding of this Association in May 1975 and for his outstanding service to the law

and the maritime community. 1

The title to this paper is ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions: Damp Squib or another Shot in the Maritime Locker?’ but, as the

sub-title shows, it was sparked by reflecting on the House of Lords’ renewed enthusiastic imprimatur given to the

anti-suit injunction in Turner v Grovit2 and the resounding rebuff administered to their Lordships by the European

Court of Justice (ECJ) when the case was referred to it to consider whether anti-suit injunctions were consistent

with the Brussels Convention.3

The theme of this address is that, although the anti-suit injunction must be confined within proper national limits

informed by proper regard for international comity and notions of sovereignty, such injunctions may nonetheless

have a valuable part to play and, perhaps, have an as yet unrealised potential in maritime law.4

In preparing this address, I was pleased to find that, entirely coincidentally, its theme echoes in broad measure

some of those in Justice Tamberlin’s 2001 Dethridge Address and those discussed by Mr Justice David Steel in his

2002 Dethridge Address.5

1 Justice Brian Tamberlin: Frank Stuart Dethridge Memorial Address 2001 ‘Globalization – Pressures and Changes’ (2002) 16

MLAANZ Journal 21.

2 [2002] 1 WLR 107; [2001] UKHL 65.

3 Turner v Grovit [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 216; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 169.

4 It should be noted that no claim is made that this paper is definitive on the topic of anti-suit injunctions or comprehensively

cites all the cases and literature on it.

5 Justice David Steel: Frank Stuart Dethridge Memorial Address 2002 ‘The Modern Maritime Judge – Policeman or Salesman?’

(2003) 17 MLAANZ Journal 6.

(2006) 20 A&NZ Mar LJ

4