Search

This note is written by way of an addendum to the author's article on the extra-territorial scope of the stay imposed in an English administration which was published in this journal last year.1 In that article, it was argued that the stay imposed in an English administration should be treated by the English courts as applying without territorial limitation but that the courts should nonetheless grant leave to proceed in other jurisdictions in any case where there is no sufficient connection with England. The purpose of this note is to reconsider the issue in the light of the decision of the Privy Council in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys2 on anti-suit injunctions, where judgement was given some months after publication of the original article. It is suggested that the decision in Shell as to the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction will be granted has significantly narrowed the issue but that extra-territoriality would nonetheless still be a desirable development.

This article considers the extra-territorial scope of the stay imposed in an English administration and argues that it should be treated by the English courts as applying without territorial limitation but that the courts should nonetheless grant leave to proceed in other jurisdictions in any case where there is no sufficient connection with England. It argues that this solution would be right in principle and that the court is not constrained from adopting such an approach by precedent. Copyright © 2014 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd