“whether or not [the Bank] did in fact acquire Plantation holdings and the date that acquisition took place, and to establish the debtor/creditor position of each of the conflicting parties, and finalisation of the settlement of the accounts between them, and to examine the basis of their agreements. ”
“The parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts with respect to all disputes arising out of or in connection with the terms of this [RSA]. The parties agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle disputes and accordingly no party to this [RSA] will argue to the contrary.”
“Whereas the plaintiff is entitled to request the Defendants to pay all indebted amounts whether the original debts or the profit amount …. The Plaintiff limits his requests in the lawsuit by requesting the profit amount valuing (thirty Million US Dollars) in addition to his right in requesting the Defendants and other debtors with paying the total original debt whether in independent lawsuit or by modifying his requests in this lawsuit.” (translation by Kamil Bashir Legal Translation, Abu Dhabi)”
“The defendants kindly request the court to refer that the original indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff bank has been entirely expired in return for transfer of Plantation Co, project ownership, as a guarantee, to the plaintiff Bank as mentioned in the [RSA]. The ownership of the project was transferred to the [Bank] whereby the original indebtedness, as proved in the documents enclosed herewith….” (translation by Kamil Bashir Legal Translation, Abu Dhabi)”
“The question whether or not the issue in service of proceedings is an unequivocal acceptance of the repudiation will depend upon the previous communications of the parties and whether or not, on an objective construction of the state of play when the proceedings are commenced, the fact of the issue and service of the writ amounts to an unequivocal communication to the defendant that his earlier repudiatory conduct has been accepted, in the sense that it is clear that the issue of such proceedings (i) is a response to the defendant’s refusal to recognise the existence of the arbitration agreement or any obligation thereunder and (ii) reflects a consequent decision on the claimant’s part himself to abandon the remedy of arbitration in favour of court proceedings.”
“Genuine proceedings have been started and have not merely been started but have developed to the stage where they have had some impact on the dispute between the parties, especially if such impact is likely to have a continuing effect, then this may be a relevant factor to be taken into account when considering whether the foreign jurisdiction provides the appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute between the parties”
“That while concurrent proceedings are generally undesirable as, in Lord Diplock’s words “a recipe for confusion and injustice”, that general undesirability is “but one consideration to be weighed as part of the overall assessment”
“However undesirable it is that parallel proceedings may proceed and in theory result in conflicting judgment, whether and to what extent it happens in practice… is another matter. Experience suggests that when parallel cases continue to be fully fought after the initial jurisdiction battles the courts will do their best to use their management powers to prevent tactical obstructionism and to achieve a just and orderly disposal of the litigation, taking into account the progress of the parallel proceedings as may be appropriate”
“It does not follow that because parallel proceedings are undesirable they are necessarily oppressive. If they are improperly brought they are oppressive, but here the argument becomes circular.”