## Facts

- Dr. Maurice Bloch, an English physician and inventor, licensed certain pharmaceutical compounds to Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. (an English company) under an English-law agreement dated April 10, 1974.
- The license contemplated that the English company would develop the product, including regulatory and marketing decisions for the United Kingdom.
- After trials, the English company concluded the product was not commercially viable and, by letter dated February 5, 1980, purported to terminate the agreement.
- On May 16, 1980, Bloch sued both the U.S. parent company and the English company in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, seeking roughly $160 million and asserting contract and tort-based claims tied to alleged suppression of the product.
- Bloch acknowledged selecting the United States due to contingency-fee arrangements and the possibility of substantially higher damages than in England.
- Most relevant witnesses, documents, and conduct concerning contracting, performance, and termination were in England.
- The English company filed suit in England seeking declarations regarding lawful performance/termination and an injunction restraining Bloch from prosecuting the U.S. action or bringing related foreign proceedings.
- The High Court granted an interim anti-suit injunction restraining Bloch from continuing the Pennsylvania case pending trial; Bloch appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an English court may enjoin a party within its jurisdiction from pursuing foreign proceedings that are oppressive or vexatious, even absent a contractual promise to litigate only in England.
2. Whether Bloch’s Pennsylvania action was sufficiently vexatious or oppressive to justify an anti-suit injunction.
3. How comity toward the foreign court affects the English court’s willingness to grant such relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Bloch’s appeal and upheld the interim anti-suit injunction.
- The court held that English courts have in personam power to restrain foreign litigation where it is just and convenient and the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive.
- On the facts, the Pennsylvania litigation was treated as oppressive, given the English center of gravity of the dispute and the practical burdens and strategic advantages sought through U.S. proceedings.
- The court concluded comity was not violated because the order bound Bloch (a party subject to English jurisdiction), not the Pennsylvania court.

## Legal Principles

- An anti-suit injunction may issue against a party amenable to English jurisdiction when foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive and injunctive relief is just and convenient.
- A contractual forum-selection clause is not a necessary predicate; equity may intervene based on oppression or vexation in the circumstances.
- In evaluating oppression, courts may consider the governing law, the most appropriate forum, the location of witnesses and evidence, relative costs and inconvenience, and whether foreign proceedings are pursued to gain procedural or damages advantages disconnected from the dispute’s real center.
- Comity concerns are addressed by limiting the injunction’s effect to the litigant’s conduct (in personam), rather than purporting to direct the foreign court.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed an interim injunction restraining Bloch from prosecuting U.S. proceedings because the dispute was essentially English and the Pennsylvania action was found vexatious or oppressive; the court confirmed that such relief can be granted even without an express contractual restriction on foreign suits.


Smith Kline & French Labs. Ltd. v. Bloch, [1983] 2 All E.R. 72 (Eng. Ct. App.)