In the above case, the defendant Bank commenced proceedings in China, onthe basis of a bill of lading, which did not, under Chinese law, incorporate an applicable law and arbitration clause. The Plaintiff Company disputed the jurisdiction of the Chinese Courts, alleging that the bill of lading had a valid arbitration clause, which has been properly incorporated on the basis of English law, which was the applicable law of the relevant contract.

The Chinese Court decided that it had jurisdiction over the claim filed by the Bank.

The Plaintiffs to the English proceedings and defendants to the Chinese proceedings, instead of applying before the English Court to obtain an anti-suit injunction, at the same time, or shortly after they challenged the jurisdiction of the Chinese Courts, they waited long time thereafter.

The English Court held that the Plaintiffs decision to delay in the filing of their application for anti-suit injunction, pending the result of the jurisdictional challenge in China, was not justified and the Plaintiffs were not entitled to such anti-suit injunction.

The above English decision reconfirms the principles that an applicant to an injunction shall move and act promptly, and not sleep on his rights.