SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2019] EWHC 2481 (Comm) (25 September 2019)

SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2019] EWHC 2481 (Comm) (25 September 2019)

The court refused to continue the anti-suit injunction because WPL had fully participated in the US proceedings, submitted to US jurisdiction, and delayed seeking relief. The US enforcement actions did not amount to vexation, oppression, or sufficient interference with the English court's jurisdiction or judgments to justify the injunction. Public policy considerations alone were insufficient, and the cumulative factors did not meet the high threshold for anti-suit relief, especially given the need for comity and the exceptional nature of such injunctions.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2481 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SAS Institute Inc.; Defendant: World Programming Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (anti Suit Injunction) / Application to Continue Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application to continue the anti-suit injunction refused; injunction discharged.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public Policy Exception, Res Judicata, Software Directive, Protection of Trading Interests Act
Private International Law Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Anti Suit Injunctions Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Public Policy Exception Res Judicata Software Directive +1 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAS Institute Inc.

Claimant

World Programming Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (anti Suit Injunction) / Application to Continue Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should continue an anti-suit injunction restraining SAS from pursuing US enforcement proceedings against WPL, particularly assignment and turnover orders with extraterritorial effect.
  2. 2 Whether the US enforcement proceedings interfere with the English court's jurisdiction or judgments, or violate English public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to continue the anti-suit injunction because WPL had fully participated in the US proceedings, submitted to US jurisdiction, and delayed seeking relief. The US enforcement actions did not amount to vexation, oppression, or sufficient interference with the English court's jurisdiction or judgments to justify the injunction. Public policy considerations alone were insufficient, and the cumulative factors did not meet the high threshold for anti-suit relief, especially given the need for comity and the exceptional nature of such injunctions.

Court Disposition

Application to continue the anti-suit injunction refused; injunction discharged.

Orders

  • The interim anti-suit injunction previously granted is discharged.
  • No continuing restraint on SAS pursuing US enforcement proceedings.