Anti-Suit Injunctions in Maritime Law: A Quasi-Contractual Expansion Against Foreign Courts

Multilateral contractual relationships and multiple jurisdictions in the maritime sector significantly increase the risk of disputes being heard simultaneously in different courts. In this context, the "Anti-suit Injunction (ASI)" is a critical procedural tool that effectively protects the parties' arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Recent case law—particularly The Yusuf Çepnioğlu (CA 2016), Times Trading v NBF (The Archagelos Gabriel) (EWHC 2020) and Hai Jiang 1401 v ST Marine (The Seven Champion) (SGHC 2020)—demonstrate that courts can extend forum agreements not only between the direct parties to the contract but also to third parties asserting rights based on the contract, using a "quasi-contractual" approach. This article examines the theoretical foundations and practical implications of this approach, particularly with regard to P&I clubs, shipowners, cargo interests, financiers, and shipyards.

The intensity of global freight flows and the complex structure of charter party and bill of lading chains pave the way for the same dispute to be conducted in multiple forums. This situation is problematic not only in terms of cost and time, but also in terms of the risk of conflicting decisions. ASI enables the court to prohibit, by means of an equitable injunction, the initiation or continuation of foreign proceedings that circumvent an arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction agreement to which the court is a party or on which it relies. In line with the classic English approach of The Angelic Grace, foreign proceedings covered by exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clauses are stopped by an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. This approach was discussed in detail in The Archagelos Gabriel decision and adopted in Singapore law in The Seven Champion decision.

In the traditional framework, an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) was only enforced when a party to the contract brought a foreign lawsuit in breach of the forum agreement. However, over the past decade, courts have broadened this framework and clarified two distinct lines of reasoning. The first line is based on the principle that a third party "assumes both the benefit and the obligation" in derivative rights relationships such as assignment, succession, or Himalaya clauses. The second line is the focus of this article: where the claim is clearly based on a contract but the forum clause is disregarded, an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) is granted against the third party on a quasi-contractual basis. This second line began with The Sea Premium and became systematic in maritime and commercial disputes with the case law of The Yusuf Çepnioğlu, Dell v IB Maroc and The Archagelos Gabriel. Courts are increasingly applying the proposition that 'a person asserting a right based on a contract must also comply with the forum regime of that contract'.

Case Reviews:

• Shipowners’ Mutual P&I Assn v Containerships Denizcilik (The Yusuf Çepnioğlu, CA 2016)

The charterer, relying on Turkey's direct action system, applied to the shipowner's P&I club; however, the club's contract contained a London arbitration clause and a "pay-to-be-paid" condition. The English courts, viewing the right to bring a direct action as essentially contractual in nature, protected the club's right to be tried in arbitration by means of an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) and accepted that the third party was bound by the forum regime in the club's contract. Thus, the link between the "contract-based claim" and "forum clause compliance" was institutionalised for third parties as well.

• Times Trading v National Bank of Fujairah (The Archagelos Gabriel), EWHC 2020

Despite the misdelivery claims under the B/L being referred to London arbitration, the English Court applied the Angelic Grace line by analogy in response to the proceedings initiated by the claimant in Singapore. Even though the debate over who the carrier was (owner or bareboat charterer?) remained unresolved, the claimant's contractual claim was not accepted for continuation in a foreign court, bypassing the forum clause, and an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) was granted. The decision is significant in that it systematises the limits of the "quasi-contractual ASI" doctrine through case examples and criteria.

• Hai Jiang 1401 v Singapore Technologies Marine (The Seven Champion), SGHC 2020

A provisional attachment and main action strategy was pursued in Sharjah for a claim based on a shipyard contract (Crane Upgrade Agreement), even though the contract was governed by Singapore law and subject to SCMA arbitration. The Singapore High Court determined that Singapore was the natural forum, that the defendant's conduct was vexatious/oppressive, and that the prima facie standard was sufficient regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement for the purposes of an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI). Furthermore, the court explicitly adopted The Sea Premium line for the first time, accepting that the forum clause in claims against third parties based on the contract could be extended to the third party. This acceptance has also been noted in detail in the post-decision literature. 

• Dell Emerging Markets v IB Maroc (EWHC 2017)

Although it is a non-maritime dispute, the broad interpretation of the exclusive jurisdiction clause, taking into account affiliate relationships and the integrity of the contractual structure, and the continuation of the Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) on a quasi-contractual basis sheds light on the activation of forum agreements at an ecosystemic level (group companies, subcontract chain). 

In English case law, the contractual Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) claim generally refers to the "high probability" standard; however, quasi-contractual and even court Angelic Grace criteria are applied analogically. This methodology is discussed in detail in The Archagelos Gabriel decision. 

In the Singapore application, the Hai Jiang 1401 decision, by opting for the prima facie standard regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement in the ASI, placed particular emphasis on preserving the competence-competence principle in favour of arbitration. This choice provides a comparative framework for how the same issue is balanced in different procedural systems. 

In addition, the courts pay attention to the "natural forum" test and the plaintiff's vexatious/oppressive conduct (e.g., initiating proceedings only where the vessel is located, effectively turning security into a coercive tool by linking it to local bank guarantees, bypassing liquidation processes by imposing joint and several liability on the owner). These indicators were carefully recorded in the Seven Champion case. 

The most significant practical implication of Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) decisions in maritime disputes is undoubtedly seen in the risks faced by shipowners. In many cases, the claims of foreign parties are based directly on contracts such as bills of lading or charter parties, yet lawsuits are filed in different courts, disregarding forum agreements. The "quasi-contractual" approach developed by the courts provides shipowners with an important protective mechanism to stop such initiatives. Indeed, as seen in The Archagelos Gabriel decision, even if the identity of the carrier has not yet been determined, the contractual nature of the claim provided the shipowner with a strong basis for requesting a transfer to London arbitration. This situation allows the shipowner to enforce the forum clause even while the identity dispute continues.

Another critical area for shipowners is disputes concerning misdelivery and letters of indemnity (LOI). In such cases, arbitration clauses incorporated into the B/L provisions generally provide an effective defence against lawsuits filed in foreign forums. In the Archagelos Gabriel case, the B/L arbitration clause secured an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) against proceedings initiated in Singapore. This confirmed that the shipowner had a powerful legal tool at its disposal against forum shopping.

However, creditors' attempts to use the ship's incidental presence to initiate proceedings in local courts often aim to exert pressure on shipowners. Tactics such as imposing a local bank guarantee condition or imposing joint and several liability on the shipowner have been deemed by courts as "vexatious" and "oppressive" behaviour, as seen in the Hai Jiang 1401 (The Seven Champion) decision. The Singapore High Court issued an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) on these grounds and upheld the validity of the SCMA arbitration clause in the contract. This example clearly demonstrates the importance for shipowners of specifying security arrangements in advance in the contract text. In particular, clearly regulating the format and jurisdiction under which the security is to be provided will prevent forum shopping efforts.

Another point shipowners should be mindful of is scenarios where the charterer is undergoing liquidation proceedings. Lawsuits filed in foreign forums often constitute circumvention of the liquidation regime. In the Seven Champion case, this issue was clearly identified by the court as a "pressure tactic". Shipowners should promptly seek an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) in such cases and insist on secure, impartial security formats.

Important consequences also arise for P&I clubs. In particular, the possibility of direct litigation under Turkish law may force clubs to defend themselves in foreign courts. However, the Yusuf Çepnioğlu decision essentially accepted the direct lawsuit as contractual in nature and established that the arbitration and "pay-to-be-paid" provisions between the club and its member could be protected by an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI). This approach allows clubs to enforce forum agreements against third parties.

For cargo stakeholders and financiers, forum agreements often appear as an element limiting the choice of venue for litigation. Attempts by banks or creditors to engage in forum shopping can be restricted through arbitration clauses. As seen in the Archagelos Gabriel and Seven Champion cases, pursuing substantive proceedings in local courts or imposing local security, to the extent that it constitutes a breach of the forum agreement, may constitute grounds for an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI).

Finally, there are lessons to be learned for actors involved in shipyards and shipbuilding/repair projects. As seen in the Seven Champion case, when the sale-leaseback and bareboat charter chain on the one hand, and the shipyard's construction/repair contracts on the other, come together, the comprehensive design of the forum regime is of critical importance. Comprehensively and clearly drafting arbitration clauses, pre-determining security provisions, and ensuring that intra-group relationships are aligned with the forum regime will provide the most effective protection against potential forum breaches.

In summary, the key point that shipowners and other stakeholders in the sector must bear in mind is this: if a claim is based on a contract, that claim is inevitably subject to the forum regime. By establishing this link at an early stage, shipowners can develop a swift and effective defence against foreign proceedings through an Anti-suit Injunction (ASI). Archagelos Gabriel's analogical approach and Seven Champion's prima facie standard form the cornerstones of this defence architecture.

The scope of forum regulations in maritime contracts should no longer be limited to the phrase "disputes arising from this contract." As current case law indicates, for a forum clause to be effective, broad and inclusive language such as "all disputes arising from or related to this contract, including non-contractual obligations" should be used. Furthermore, subjecting disputes that may arise through group companies (affiliates) or assignment relationships to the same forum arrangement will ensure consistency in dispute resolution. In this regard, the jurisdiction and venue for the security and collateral regime should also be clarified at the contract stage; otherwise, creditors' local security requirements may lead to forum breach discussions.

The "quasi-contractual" approach developed by the courts is making it increasingly difficult for third parties in the contractual ecosystem to avoid forum clauses. This necessitates a holistic approach to contract design. The analytical framework in The Archagelos Gabriel decision and the prima facie standard adopted in The Seven Champion decision send strong signals to the maritime sector in this regard.

Consequently, in maritime disputes, the Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) institution, thanks to the "quasi-contractual" expansion of the Angelic Grace tradition, serves to ensure that forum agreements are now effective not only between the parties but also against third parties. The Yusuf Çepnioğlu decision has systematically established the litigation-arbitration balance in favour of the club; The Archagelos Gabriel decision has strengthened the analogous Anti-suit Injunction (ASI) route against foreign proceedings that rely on the contract and disregard the forum clause; Hai Jiang 1401 (The Seven Champion), meanwhile, has clearly confirmed the arbitration-friendly approach by adopting the prima facie standard and the Sea Premium line.

In light of these developments, it has become an integral part of effective dispute management for industry players—shipowners, P&I clubs, cargo interests, financiers, and shipyards—to proactively adapt their contract architecture to these precedents.

Source Court Decisions: 
- Times Trading v National Bank of Fujairah (The Archagelos Gabriel), EWHC 1078 (Comm), 5 May 2020 (general framework of the decision and quasi-contractual ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION analysis). 

- Hai Jiang 1401 v Singapore Technologies Marine (The Seven Champion), [2020] SGHC 20 (natural forum, vexatious/oppressive assessment, prima facie standard and acceptance of the Sea Premium line). 

- Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd v IB Maroc.com SA, [2017] EWHC 2397 (Comm) (forum regime in an affiliate structure and quasi-contractual reasoning). 

 - “Anti-Suit Injunctions – Novel Singapore Judgment on Third Party Reliance on Exclusive Forum Clauses”, decision analysis  

Author's note: The author, Attorney Cem CONGAR, acted as counsel for a party in the "M/V Yusuf Çepnioğlu" case.