## Facts

- Laker Airways Ltd, an English airline operating transatlantic routes, experienced severe financial distress and collapsed in February 1982.
- Midland Bank plc, an English bank, had extended banking facilities to Laker in 1981; the relevant lending and related decisions occurred in England.
- After the collapse, Laker (through its liquidator) pursued US federal antitrust claims alleging a predatory-pricing conspiracy designed to drive Laker from the market.
- Laker indicated an intention to join Midland as a defendant in the US antitrust proceedings, asserting that Midland was implicated in, or liable for, events connected to Laker’s collapse.
- Midland commenced proceedings in England seeking (1) a declaration of non-liability and (2) an injunction restraining Laker and its liquidator from instituting or continuing US antitrust proceedings against Midland.
- An injunction was initially granted but later discharged at first instance; Midland appealed to the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. When may an English court restrain a party subject to its jurisdiction from pursuing proceedings in a foreign court (an anti-suit injunction)?
2. Whether it was “unconscionable,” vexatious, or oppressive for Laker to sue Midland in US antitrust proceedings given that Midland’s relevant conduct occurred in England and US jurisdiction was disputed.
3. Whether the alleged weakness of the evidentiary basis for naming Midland in the US antitrust proceedings could itself justify an anti-suit injunction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Midland’s appeal and declined to restore the anti-suit injunction.
- The court held that an anti-suit injunction is exceptional and requires a showing that pursuit of the foreign proceedings would be unconscionable, vexatious, or oppressive.
- It was not unconscionable for Laker to pursue US antitrust proceedings against Midland where there was at least an arguable connection to the United States and the US court could determine its own jurisdiction and the reach of its statutes.
- The court declined to treat the perceived weakness of Laker’s case as a distinct basis to restrain the US proceedings, because that would invite an English merits assessment of foreign litigation.

## Legal Principles

- English courts have in personam jurisdiction to restrain parties before them from commencing or continuing foreign proceedings, but the power is exercised sparingly.
- An anti-suit injunction generally requires proof that the foreign proceedings are vexatious, oppressive, or otherwise unconscionable, not merely that the foreign law or jurisdictional rules may be broader than English law.
- Where the foreign forum has a plausible basis for jurisdiction and the dispute has a real connection to that forum, questions about jurisdiction, extraterritorial reach of foreign statutes, and merits are ordinarily left to the foreign court.
- The alleged weakness of the claimant’s evidentiary case in the foreign proceedings is not, without more, sufficient to establish unconscionability warranting anti-suit relief.
- Comity weighs against restraining access to a foreign court that is competent to address objections to jurisdiction and to control abusive litigation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal refused to restrain Laker from pursuing US antitrust proceedings against Midland, holding that anti-suit injunctions require a high threshold of unconscionability and that disputed US jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, and the strength of the antitrust claim were matters for the US court to decide.


Midland Bank plc v. Laker Airways Ltd., [1986] 1 Q.B. 689 (Eng. C.A. 1986)