The claimant entered into two English law charterparties, which referred disputes to arbitration in London. The defendant, who was not a party to the charterparties, guaranteed the charterer's obligations. The guarantees contained no jurisdiction or choice of law clause. Following default by the charterer, the claimant commenced arbitration proceedings against the defendant. The defendant commenced proceedings in Russia, claiming that the guarantees were unenforceable under Russian law.

Teare J upheld the continuation of the anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing the Russian proceedings. England was the natural forum and the pursuit of the Russian proceedings was vexatious. It was reasonably certain that the parties had chosen English law as the applicable law of the guarantee: there was a very close connection between the charterers and the guarantor, and the charterparties themselves contained an express choice of English law. The implied choice of English law in the guarantee strongly suggested that England was the natural forum for the resolution of disputes relating to the guarantee. Moreover, the relevant documents were in English, the claimant's witnesses were in England and English proceedings would determine all aspects of the dispute between the parties.

Teare J also dismissed the defendant's argument that permission to serve the application for an interim anti-suit injunction should not have been granted. Such an application was a "document in the proceedings" within the meaning of CPR 6.37 and CPR 6.38. To the extent that it was necessary to put a gloss on those simple words by reference to the decision in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International [2008] EWCA Civ 625 (paragraph 26), then the application was for an ancillary order "in protection of [the court's] jurisdiction and its processes, including the integrity of its judgments". That is because the grant of the injunction prevented any risk of issues in the English proceedings being resolved by an issue estoppel arising out of the Russian proceedings and without regard to the principles of English law, which was the applicable law of the guarantee. Teare J also confirmed that there was no requirement that the defendant must have submitted to the jurisdiction before his pursuit of foreign proceedings can be regarded as vexatious.

Case: Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 3003 (Comm).