The recent decision in MSC Tasmania (1) is a reminder of our 8-point checklist for those considering whether to seek an Anti-Suit injunction.
This decision involved a tit for tat between English and Nigerian law. I have some unpleasant memories of Nigeria having been on the tail end of Nigerian contempt proceedings back in the early 2000’s. At that time, my clients had legitimately obtained an anti-suit injunction in the English High Court to stop proceedings against insurers in Nigeria brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The Nigerian party retaliated with their own anti-suit injunction to restrain the High Court proceedings. We escalated by adding the Nigerian lawyer who was driving the Nigerian litigation to the anti-suit. He retaliated by adding me to his anti-suit. You get the drift.
The MSC Tasmania appears to be heading in the same direction. MSC obtained an anti-suit to restrain proceedings in Nigeria. The opponents invoked the Nigerian Admiralty Jurisdiction Act to argue that Nigerian law did not recognise exclusive law and jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading. MSC also obtained an anti-anti suit to seek to prevent the opponents from getting their own anti-suit in Nigeria (which was ineffective). The upshot is the case continues to trial in the High Court presumably on a claim for damages caused to MSC by virtue of the opponents’ continuing breach of the exclusive law and jurisdiction clause. One assumes the same applies in Nigeria so we’ll no doubt end up with competing judgments – just as we did with my old case.
The upshot of this is to add a ninth point to our checklist which is that parties should always consider the old adage “possession is nine tenths of the law”. It seems the Nigerians hold the upper hand in this case as they arrested MSC’s ship in Nigeria. That arrest was only lifted recently in exchange for security of US$10M. It will be interesting to see how the case pans out.
(1) [2025] EWHC 1464
Nick Burgess
Partner
