Despite the significance of anti-suit injunctions, there is no uniform approach among courts or arbitral tribunals regarding how to react to these provisional measures. The fact that the anti-suit injunction is a Common Law measure and there is no uniform approach even within a single Common Law country (such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the US) makes it more challenging to interpret anti-suit injunctions in one particular way. Therefore, anti-suit injunctions are evaluated differently on a case-by-case basis and differently from one forum to another.
Although it falls outside the scope of this study to consider the approaches of each country, one may argue that there are two main approaches towards anti-suit injunctions. Some courts approach anti-suit injunctions affirmatively and find them inherently helpful, whereas some courts consider such requests very strictly and evaluate such measure as inherently harmful. For example, despite some crucial exceptions, Civil Law countries usually object to anti-suit injunctions, whereas Common Law countries evaluate such requests affirmatively when all conditions are met. In the context of international arbitration, the power of arbitrators to issue provisional measures also includes the power to issue anti-suit inunctions, and if deemed appropriate, the arbitral tribunal may easily issue anti-suit injunctions to protect parties’ contractual interests. Furthermore, even within a single Common Law country, one may observe various approaches by different courts.