## Facts

- In 1977, Inocencio Fernando Castanho, a Portuguese seaman, was catastrophically injured and paralyzed while working aboard a vessel in the harbor of Great Yarmouth, England.
- Castanho sued two corporate defendants within a wider offshore shipping/oil-service group, commencing proceedings in England.
- In the English action, the defendants admitted liability, and the court ordered interim payments totaling £27,250, which Castanho used to purchase land and build a house.
- Later, Texas-based lawyers advised Castanho to discontinue the English action and pursue litigation in Texas to seek substantially higher damages.
- Castanho executed a power of attorney authorizing Texas counsel to sue relevant entities in Texas and proposed that the interim payments be reimbursed and certain ongoing costs financed.
- Castanho served a notice of discontinuance in England under procedural rules while pursuing or preparing Texas proceedings seeking very large damages.
- The defendants applied to strike out the notice of discontinuance and to enjoin Castanho from pursuing the Texas action.

## Issues

1. Whether an English court has inherent power to set aside or treat as inoperative a properly served notice of discontinuance when discontinuance would amount to an abuse of process.
2. Whether, and under what circumstances, an English court may grant an anti-suit injunction restraining a party from pursuing foreign proceedings after that party has invoked the English forum.
3. Whether seeking a more generous damages forum abroad, without more, constitutes an abuse justifying judicial interference.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that English courts have inherent jurisdiction to control misuse of a notice of discontinuance to prevent abuse of process.
- The House also held that English courts have jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, to restrain a party by anti-suit injunction from pursuing foreign proceedings, but the power must be exercised with great caution.
- On the facts, the House dismissed the defendants’ appeal, upheld the discontinuance, and affirmed discharge of the injunction restraining the Texas proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A court may invoke inherent jurisdiction to protect its own process and may disregard or set aside a notice of discontinuance if its use constitutes an abuse of process.
- Anti-suit injunctions operate in personam and may be granted to restrain foreign litigation that is oppressive, vexatious, or a misuse of domestic process, but they are exceptional and must be used sparingly with regard to comity.
- A plaintiff’s desire to sue in a forum offering higher damages is not, by itself, an abuse; the court assesses the overall fairness of the litigation strategy and the foreign forum’s connection to the parties and dispute.
- The reasoning relevant to stays for forum reasons informs whether restraining foreign proceedings is justified; the controlling question is whether justice between the parties plainly requires intervention.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that English courts possess limited inherent powers to police discontinuance and to restrain foreign proceedings to prevent abuse, but it declined to force continuation of the English action or to enjoin the Texas suit where the foreign forum had a genuine connection and the plaintiff’s pursuit of higher damages alone did not justify exceptional relief.


Castanho v. Brown & Root (U.K.) Ltd., [1981] A.C. 557 (H.L. 1980)