Deutsche Bank AG and another v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP and others [2009] EWCA Civ 725; [2009] All ER (D) 116 (Jul)
The starting point for considering the effect of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause was the wording of the clause.
Where a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause had not clearly indicated whether prior or subsequent parallel proceedings in a non-selected forum were permitted or prohibited, the best interpretation would usually be that, by contracting for non-exclusive jurisdiction, the parties had anticipated and accepted the possibility of some parallel proceedings, and as a result, only foreign proceedings which were vexatious and oppressive for some reason independent of the mere presence of the non-exclusive clause would be restrained by injunction.
When looking at whether the interests of justice required that an anti-suit injunction should be granted, it would not be right to start with a general presumption that parallel proceedings in a non-selected forum should be regarded as vexatious or oppressive and that there would be a burden on the party responsible for prosecuting them to make out a strong case to justify them on grounds of matters unforeseeable
