Marsh Ltd v Greensill Bank AG [2024] EWHC 3068 (Comm)
This case considered whether an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendant, Greensill Bank AG, from bringing foreign proceedings against the Claimant, Marsh Ltd, should be set aside.
The Court clarified that the ‘high degree of probability’ threshold for interim anti-suit injunctions will usually mean something close to the standard set by the summary judgment test. The twin rationales for the adoption of this test were as follows:
- Interim anti-suit injunctions tend to be determinative of the question in issue; and
- Interim anti-suit injunctions do not merely interfere with the private rights of the respondent, but may interfere, albeit indirectly, with the working output of a foreign country, raising issues of comity.
In reaching that conclusion, it was considered that the court should have regard to evidence that can (or could) be reasonably expected to be available at trial.
The role of proportionality in determining whether a party’s breach of its duty of full and frank disclosure is sufficient to set aside an interim anti-suit injunction was also highlighted by the court.
In the absence of strong reasons against allowing the continuation of the anti-suit injunction, the court found that it was in the interests of justice to allow the interim anti-suit injunction to continue on a more limited basis to restrain Greensill Bank AG from taking any steps to initiate or bring any claim against Marsh Ltd in Australia.
Read the full judgment here.
