Gray v Hurley

Gray v Hurley

Article 4(1) of the Judgments Regulation does not confer a right enforceable by injunction to restrain proceedings outside England, and the court's discretion does not justify granting an anti-suit injunction given the material connections to New Zealand and considerations of comity.

Parties
Claimant: Mandy C Gray; Defendant: Hamish George Hurley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Judgments Regulation, Forum Non Conveniens, Human Rights
Private International Law Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Judgments Regulation Forum Non Conveniens Human Rights

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandy C Gray

Claimant

Hamish George Hurley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 4(1) of the Judgments Regulation confers a right enforceable by injunction to prevent proceedings outside England
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction
  3. 3 Whether refusal to grant an injunction would breach section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

Article 4(1) of the Judgments Regulation does not confer a right enforceable by injunction to restrain proceedings outside England, and the court's discretion does not justify granting an anti-suit injunction given the material connections to New Zealand and considerations of comity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed