ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd v Toepfer International Asia PTE Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 1427 (Comm) (20 June 2016)

ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd v Toepfer International Asia PTE Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 1427 (Comm) (20 June 2016)

The application for an anti-suit injunction was refused as a matter of discretion because ADM did not act promptly after being served with the Indonesian proceedings, instead engaging in those proceedings both on jurisdiction and substance for over a year. Such delay, combined with the advanced stage of the Indonesian litigation and considerations of comity, made it inappropriate to grant the injunction.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1427 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte. Ltd (formerly known as Toepfer International Asia Pte. Ltd); Defendant/respondent: PT Budi Semesta Satria
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Final Anti Suit Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Application for final anti-suit injunction refused
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Delay in Equitable Relief, Arbitration Agreements, Comity, Discretionary Remedies
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Delay in Equitable Relief Arbitration Agreements Comity Discretionary Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte. Ltd (formerly known as Toepfer International Asia Pte. Ltd)

Claimant/applicant

PT Budi Semesta Satria

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Final Anti Suit Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in seeking an anti-suit injunction justifies refusal of relief
  2. 2 Whether the Indonesian proceedings are in breach of the arbitration clause
  3. 3 Whether the applicant acted promptly in seeking equitable relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an anti-suit injunction was refused as a matter of discretion because ADM did not act promptly after being served with the Indonesian proceedings, instead engaging in those proceedings both on jurisdiction and substance for over a year. Such delay, combined with the advanced stage of the Indonesian litigation and considerations of comity, made it inappropriate to grant the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for final anti-suit injunction refused

Orders

  • No anti-suit injunction granted
  • Application dismissed