top of page
casetreasury

Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119

Facts: There was an aerial incident in Bangalore, India, where many people were killed and seriously injured. English residents (P, individuals & deceased represented as “Patel”) sued the French aircraft manufacturer in Texas, arguing negligence in defective design, as the manufacturer carried on business in Texas (so Texan court had personal jurisdiction over D). At the time of the case, there was no doctrine of FNC. Patel wanted to take advantage of product liability law in the US, would have higher damages available, and the Texas judge who had carriage of the case had a reputation for getting cases in and out quickly. D applied to the English High Court for an anti-suit injunction restraining P from continuing proceedings in Texas. The only connection with England was that the Ps were residents of England.


Held: Anti-suit injunction (ASI) was not granted here as there was nothing to “render the invention of the English court consistent with comity”.


Principle: As a general rule, before an anti-suit injunction can properly be granted by an English court to restrain a person from pursuing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in cases of the kind under consideration in the present case, comity requires that the English forum should have a sufficient interest in, or connection with, the matter in question to justify the indirect interference with the foreign court which an anti-suit injunction entails.

bottom of page