## Facts

- Gregory Paul Turner, a UK national, worked as legal adviser for the Chequepoint Group, controlled by Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit.
- Turner worked in London, then transferred to Madrid in 1997; his employment contract was transferred to Harada Ltd (a UK company).
- Turner resigned in February 1998 and filed an employment claim in London against Harada alleging unfair dismissal and unpaid sums.
- While the UK claim was pending, Changepoint SA (a Spanish group company) sued Turner in Spain seeking damages for alleged breach of employment obligations.
- Turner asserted the Spanish case lacked jurisdictional basis and was brought to obstruct his UK employment claim.
- Turner sought an English anti-suit injunction restraining Grovit, Harada, and Changepoint from continuing the Spanish action or starting related proceedings elsewhere; the Court of Appeal granted a broad injunction backed by sanctions, finding the Spanish proceedings were brought in bad faith.
- The defendants appealed to the House of Lords, arguing the injunction was incompatible with the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments.

## Issues

1. Whether the Brussels Convention permits a court in one Contracting State to enjoin a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in the court of another Contracting State.
2. Whether alleged abuse of process or bad faith in bringing the foreign proceedings permits such an injunction under the Convention’s jurisdictional scheme.

## Decision

- The Court of Justice held the Brussels Convention precludes an injunction restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in another Contracting State’s courts, even if the foreign proceedings are brought in bad faith to frustrate proceedings in the forum.
- The Court reasoned that an anti-suit injunction, though directed at a party, effectively prevents the foreign court from determining its own jurisdiction and hearing the case.
- The Court emphasized the Convention’s system is based on mutual trust among Contracting States’ courts and does not allow one State’s court to review another’s jurisdiction, save for limited exceptions at the recognition/enforcement stage.
- The case was to be resolved domestically in conformity with this interpretation, meaning the anti-suit injunction could not be maintained under the Convention.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Brussels Convention, a court in one Contracting State may not restrain proceedings in another Contracting State’s courts through an anti-suit injunction.
- An anti-suit injunction constitutes impermissible interference with the foreign court’s jurisdiction because it hinders that court’s ability to decide its own jurisdiction and the merits.
- The Convention’s allocation of jurisdiction rests on mutual trust and generally forbids inter-court review of jurisdiction before judgment.
- Claims that foreign proceedings are abusive or brought in bad faith do not justify derogation from the Convention’s jurisdictional and enforcement framework; any limited jurisdictional control occurs only at recognition/enforcement and only in specified exceptional situations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Brussels Convention bars Member State courts from issuing anti-suit injunctions to stop proceedings in another Member State’s courts, even where the foreign action is alleged to be a bad-faith tactic to undermine pending forum litigation.


Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-3565 (E.C.J. 2004)