Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1987 |
| Year | 1987 |
| Date | 1987 |
Injunction - Jurisdiction to grant - Restraint of foreign proceedings - Brunei resident killed in helicopter crash in Brunei - Proceedings commenced in Brunei and Texas against French helicopter manufacturer - Manufacturer seeking indemnity against third parties in Brunei proceedings - Whether plaintiffs to be restrained from continuing with proceedings in Texas
A helicopter manufactured by a French company S., owned by an English company, and operated and serviced by a Malaysian company, crashed in Brunei. The deceased, who was a passenger, was killed. He and his family were resident in Brunei, and he was a successful businessman providing in particular catering services for oil rigs operating off Brunei. The plaintiffs, the deceased's widow and administrators of his estate, instituted proceedings in Brunei against the Malaysian company and S., in France against S., and in Texas against, inter alia, S. and its associated companies and the Malaysian company and its associates. The Texas court had jurisdiction over S. because S. carried on business there. The French proceedings against S. were discontinued, and the plaintiffs' claim against the Malaysian company was settled. S. and its associated companies applied to the Texas court for dismissal of the plaintiffs' action there on the ground of forum non conveniens, and although other issues were also raised the judge dismissed the application without giving reasons. The plaintiffs' Texas attorneys commenced pre-trial discovery and trial was eventually fixed for 1 July 1987 in Texas. Meanwhile S. applied to the High Court of Negara Brunei Darussalam for an order restraining the plaintiffs from continuing with the Texas proceedings. The application was dismissed and S. appealed. The plaintiffs gave undertakings that they would agree to trial by judge alone in Texas, and they accepted that on trial in Texas the law of Brunei was applicable as to liability and quantum so that no claim lay against S. on the basis of strict liability or for punitive damages. S. gave undertakings to protect the position of the plaintiffs and their Texas attorneys in Brunei, and to facilitate trial of the action there in autumn 1987. A contribution notice was served by S. on the Malaysian company, which intimated that it would submit to Brunei but not Texas Jurisdiction, and that it would accept service of a third party notice issued by S. in Brunei. S. accepted service in Brunei of a writ issued by the owners and insurers of the helicopter. The Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam dismissed S.'s appeal against the refusal to grant an injunction holding that having regard to the work done by the plaintiffs' Texas attorneys Texas had become the appropriate and natural forum.
On appeal by S.: —
Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that in considering whether an injunction should be granted to restrain a plaintiff beginning or pursuing an action in another jurisdiction, the court did not proceed on the same principles as those applied when granting a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens; that the authorities showed that an injunction would be granted where justice required that a plaintiff amenable to the jurisdiction of the court should be restrained from proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction; and that, although the question of whether the plaintiff's action was oppressive or vexacious was material in determining whether the interests of justice required the plaintiff to be restrained from proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction, the court had also to consider the injustice to the plaintiff if restricted to the natural forum for determining the dispute if that restriction would unjustly deprive him of advantages available in the foreign forum (post, pp. 70G, 73D–G, 74D–H).
(2) That Brunei not Texas was the natural forum for the trial of the plaintiffs' action against S. and the work already undertaken by the lawyers in the Texas proceedings was not sufficient to make that court the natural forum for the determination of the dispute; that it would be oppressive for the plaintiffs to continue the Texas proceedings because of the serious injustice to S. in not being able to claim in those proceedings indemnity or contribution from the Malaysian company for any liability S. might have to the plaintiffs; and that, since the undertakings entered into by S. were sufficient to ensure that any advantage to the plaintiffs in proceedings in Texas would be available in the proceedings in Brunei, no injustice would be caused to the plaintiffs by being restrained from proceeding in Texas and, accordingly, an injunction would be granted on terms set out in the undertakings (post, pp. 76F–77A, C, 80A–E).
Quaere. Whether a foreign judgment gives a right to seek contribution from others in respect of the same damage (post, p. 79H–80A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd. [
Bushby v. Munday (
Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren (
Castanho v. Brown & Root (U.K.) Ltd. [
Cohen v. Rothfield [
Comex Houlder Diving Ltd. v. Colne Fishing Co. Ltd. (unreported), 19 March 1987,
Harris v. Empress Motors Ltd. [
Hyman v. Helm (
MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd. [
McHenry v. Lewis (
North Carolina Estate Co. Ltd., In re (
Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt (
Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. [
South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” N.V. [
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [
St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd. [
Young v. Barclay (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Armstrong v. Armstrong [
Atlantic Star, The [
Bank of Tokyo Ltd. v. Karoon (Note) [
Bethell v. Peace (
Bremen (The) v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (
Cargill Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (
Chase Manhattan Bank v. State of Iran (
Cole v. Cunningham (
Distin, In re (
Donovan v. City of Dallas (
Graham v. Maxwell (
Hoover Realty Co. v. American Institute of Marketing Systems Inc. (
Kline v. Burke Construction Co. (
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines (
Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2) [
Metall und Rohstoff AG v. ACLI Metals (London) Ltd. [
Midland Bank Plc. v. Laker Airways Ltd. [
Moore v. Moore (
Seattle Totems Hockey Club Inc. v. National Hockey League (
Settlement Corporation v. Hochschild [
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Bloch [
Thornton v. Thornton (
Unterweser Reederei GMBH, In re (
APPEAL (No. 13 of 1987) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam by Societe Nationale Aerospatiale (S.N.I.A.S.) from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam (Briggs P., Kempster and O'Connor, Judicial Commissioners) given on 20 March 1987 dismissing an appeal by S.N.I.A.S. from the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Rhind in the High Court of Negara Brunei Darussalam at Bandar Seri Begawan on 22 December 1986, written reasons being delivered on 16 January 1987, whereby S.N.I.A.S.' application for an order that the plaintiffs, Lee Kui Jak and Yong Joon Kim (both suing as administrators of the estate of Yong Joon San, deceased, and Lee Kui Jak also suing in her personal capacity as widow of Yong Joon San) be restrained from further prosecuting the suit filed in the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, against S.N.I.A.S.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Ian Hunter Q.C. and David Joseph for S.N.I.A.S.
Nicholas Chambers Q.C. and Raymond Szetu (of the Brunei and Malaysian Bars) for the plaintiffs.
14 May. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY.
There is before their Lordships an appeal by the appellants, Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale (whom their Lordships will refer to as “S.N.I.A.S.”), from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam delivered on 20 March 1987, in which the Court of Appeal dismissed an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
UBS AG New York and Others v Fairfield Sentry Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Others
...and oppressive litigation. But its general nature is clear. The Board in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871, 893–897 identified as examples of such litigation proceedings which were so absurd that they could not possibly succeed, proceedings raised simpl......
-
Advanced Portfolio Technologies Inc. v Ainsworth [ChD]
...30 March 1988, CA). Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) LtdELR[1981] AC 557. Socit Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui JakELR[1987] AC 871. Stay of proceedings Plaintiff seeking stay of own proceedings Forum non conveniens Proceedings in New York against defendant's company and defen......
- BSNC Leasing Sdn Bhd v Sabah Shipyard Sdn Bhd
- Société Commerciale de Réassurance v Eras International Ltd (No. 2)
-
Up In The Air
...legal proceedings in any jurisdiction other than Malaysia. The case on point is Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871 ("Lee Kui Before we discuss the case of Lee Kui Jak, it is pertinent to firstly answer whether the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction to hear......
-
MEDIATION CLAUSES
...F 3d 624 at 626 (5th Cir, 1996). 156 Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54) (UK) s 39; Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871; Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119; Donohue v Armco [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425; Turner v Grovit [2002] 1 WLR 107; Turner v Grovit [2......
-
Table of Cases
...465 (C.A.) .......................................................... 392 Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] A.C. 871, [1987] 3 W.L.R. 59, [1987] 3 All E.R. 510 (P.C.) ......................... 172 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty v. Cape Breton Humane S......
-
Table of cases
...(CA) .....................................................................544 Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, [1987] AC 871, [1987] 3 WLR 59, [1987] 3 All ER 510 (PC) ...................... 264 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty v Cape Breton Humane Society, 20......
-
Civil Procedure
...was embodied in the four principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak[1987] AC 871. First, the jurisdiction was to be exercised when the ends of justice required it. Secondly, the order was directed not against the foreign court but......
