Anti-suit injunctions – new guidance from Isle of Man High Court

Defendants restrained from pursuing Italian proceedings 

Acting Deemster Gough has, once again, contributed notably to Isle of Man law on injunctions.

In Hansard International Ltd v Ripamonti & others (CHP 25/0105) (18.08.26), he granted an anti-suit injunction to a local life assurance company, which:

• permanently restrained the Defendants from prosecuting Italian proceedings or commencing other foreign proceedings arising out of or in connection with certain life assurance policies; and which
• required the Defendants, as soon as practicable, to withdraw or stay the Italian proceedings.

The Defendants, personal representatives of the late Gerolamo Ripamonti, had filed proceedings in Lecco, Italy, in respect of the policies.

The policies included an Isle of Man exclusive jurisdiction clause. Hansard sought declaratory and final injunctive relief – via an anti-suit injunction – from the Isle of Man High Court.

The Isle of Man proceedings were not contested.

At § 39, Acting Deemster Gough agreed with the approach in Old Mutual International Isle of Man Limited v Lynch (CHP 2018/0003) (30.01.18) to the effect that: “a Manx exclusive jurisdiction provision is a natural and commercially intelligible term in an international policy issued by a Manx insurer”.

Test for anti-suit injunction

After referring to the Court’s jurisdiction to grant interlocutory or final injunctions in s 42(1) High Court Act 1991 (and also to ss 41, 42 (2) and s 43)), Acting Deemster Gough discussed the principles governing exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant anti-suit relief:

“25. The leading Manx authority is Excalibur Almaz Limited and Others v Horie (2DS 2017/19, 24 November 2017; 2017 MLR N-22)… It confirms that the broad words “just and convenient” in section 42 are controlled by settled principles applicable to anti-suit relief.

26. Where an applicant relies upon an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, it must establish to a high degree of probability that the agreement binds the respondent and governs the dispute in question. A merely strongly arguable case is insufficient: Excalibur at [48] and [51].

27. Once that threshold is met, the Court will ordinarily restrain proceedings brought in the non-contractual forum unless the respondent establishes a strong reason for permitting them to continue. The burden of establishing that reason lies on the respondent: Excalibur at [60], [73] and [87].

28. The discretion remains equitable and must be exercised with caution. Relevant principles include giving exclusive jurisdiction clauses a generous interpretation, holding parties to their contractual bargain, considering whether the applicant has delayed or otherwise acted unconscionably and recognising that the interests of justice ordinarily favour the determination of the whole dispute by one tribunal rather than risking inconsistent judgments: Excalibur at [60], [76]-[83] and [85]-[88].

29. Excalibur also confirms that damages will not usually be an adequate remedy. The prejudice is not confined to legal expense. It includes being required to litigate in the wrong forum, possible differences in the applicable law and procedure, and the risk of competing decisions: [60]-[75].

30. Excalibur gave rise to a Note in the 2017 MLR – 2017 MLR Note 22. It is worth setting out relevant parts…

“(1) an anti-suit injunction was an equitable relief and therefore at the discretion of the court but that discretion was not unfettered. The following principles, contained in the English jurisprudence, applied equally to the Isle of Man. (i) The general practice was to give exclusive jurisdiction clauses, as between the parties to them, a generous interpretation. (ii) The exercise of the broad discretion conferred on the  court by s 42 of the High Court Act 1991 to grant an injunction in all cases in which it appeared to the court to be just and convenient to do so was controlled by principles to be derived from a substantial line of authority. (iii) If contracting parties agreed to give a particular court exclusive jurisdiction to rule on claims between those parties, and a claim falling within the scope of the agreement was made in proceedings in a forum other than that which the parties had agreed, the court would ordinarily exercise its discretion by restraining the prosecution of proceedings in the non-contractual forum abroad to secure compliance with the contractual bargain, unless the party suing in the noncontractual forum (the burden being on him) could show “strong reason” for suing in that forum. Whether a party could show “strong reason” sufficient to displace the other party’s prima facie entitlement to enforce the contractual bargain, would depend on all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (iv) A party could lose his claim to equitable relief by dilatoriness (or other unconscionable conduct). And (v) interests of justice were best served by the submission of the whole dispute to a single tribunal which was best fitted to make a reliable, comprehensive judgment on all the matters in issue. Further, damages would not usually be an adequate remedy, since damages would not be easily calculable and could only be calculated by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the respective fora. That was likely to involve an even graver breach of comity than the granting of an anti-suit injunction”.

31. Those principles were applied in [Old Mutual International] and summarised in Auto-Cycle Union Limited and Another v Mercer [2019] MLR 505 at [61]. Mercer also confirms at [64]-[66] that, absent strong reasons to displace the clause, there is no occasion to undertake a freestanding Spiliada forum conveniens exercise.

32. A later decision in Old Mutual International Isle of Man Limited v Lynch (ORD 2019/9, 12 February 2020) is factually close to this case. It concerned an exclusive Manx jurisdiction clause in an international life assurance policy and an attempt to litigate the validity of that policy abroad. At [62]-[67] the Court enforced the clause and rejected the suggestion that such a provision was unusually onerous...

33. The principles apply equally where the relevant rights have been assigned or are asserted under foreign legislation. In Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret AS (The Yusuf Cepnioglu) [2016] EWCA Civ 386… at [46]-[50], the Court of Appeal held that a person who becomes entitled to enforce a contractual obligation must do so in accordance with the incidents of that obligation, including any agreed dispute resolution clause. The way the claimant obtained the right – by assignment, transfer or statute – did not permit it to discard that clause…

35. An anti-suit injunction is directed to the party, not to the foreign court… Comity is respected by confining the order to the contractual parties and to proceedings within the scope of their bargain.

36. … I applied the established high degree of probability test. The unchallenged documentary evidence also established the material contractual facts on the ordinary civil standard required for final declarations.”

Note for practitioners: Hansard confirms the test for obtaining an anti-suit injunction in the Isle of Man. It also confirms the “high degree of probability” and “strong reason” tests in respect of enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

[Further update 15.09.26] See now also, on exclusive jurisdiction clauses: Gort (Holdings) Ltd v MRP Brazil Ltd & another (2DS 2026/03) (14.09.26) (at § 23)

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.

Image credit: Lamar Belina