Under English law, the
arbitration agreement gives rise to an actionable right to restrain breach
through an anti-suit injunction (ASI). While an ASI is readily available in
cases where the seat of arbitration is in England, until recently the question
as to whether the same relief could be obtained in support of foreign-seated
arbitrations had remained uncertain. This issue was raised for the first time
in a series of recent cases in which the English High Court issued divergent
decisions. Nevertheless, before the Court of Appeal the prevailing position was
that, provided personal jurisdiction over the defendant is established under
Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), an ASI will generally be granted
irrespective of the foreign seat and despite the absence of a stronger geographical
nexus with England and Wales. The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the ASI but
found it unnecessary to express a view on the proposition as to whether
personal jurisdiction was a sufficient condition for relief. This article
asserts that the proposition is both consistent with previous authority, and in
conformity with comity and international law in general. More broadly, the
decisions shed light on the basis and contours of ASI as a form of equitable
relief, which is meant to correct the injustice arising from the breach of
legally binding promises not to submit disputes arising under an arbitration
agreement to other fora.