This blog has been contributed by Dr Manos Maganaris, Module Convenor for Conflict of laws.
Anti-suit injunctions now occupy a prominent place in English private international law. The Supreme Court’s decision in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30 provides a clear restatement of principle for their deployment in aid of foreign-seated arbitration. The bonds in issue were governed by English law and contained International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) clauses with a Paris seat. RusChemAlliance began proceedings in St Petersburg in defiance of those clauses. The Court of Appeal granted a final injunction to restrain the Russian action. On 18 September 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the English courts were properly seised to grant relief that holds parties to their promise to arbitrate. The case summary and judgment of the Court explain the jurisdictional pathway and set the analytical frame for determining both the law of the arbitration agreement and the identification of the proper place to grant relief.
The governing-law analysis proceeds by applying Enka Insaat v Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38. The inquiry begins with any express choice. In the absence of an express clause it turns to implied choice with the law of the underlying contract as a powerful indicator. In UniCredit the express English governing law clause extended to the arbitration agreement contained in the same instrument. That conclusion brought the claim within the service gateway for contracts governed by English law and grounded the court’s authority to grant equitable relief through its own procedure. The result is that Enka remains the controlling authority on the law of the arbitration agreement and UniCredit is its most important contemporary application.
The forum analysis is straightforward once the governing law is fixed. England was the proper place to decide whether foreign litigation should be restrained in order to give effect to a promise to arbitrate in Paris. The arbitration agreement was governed by English law. The remedy sought was the English anti-suit injunction. The court that grants the order is the court that supervises compliance. The selection of a foreign seat did not demote the English court from that supervisory role in relation to its own equitable relief. The Supreme Court made clear that nothing in the choice of Paris as the seat prevented the English court from acting where the contractual anchor pointed to English law.
This approach rests on foundations that predate current geopolitical frictions. In AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35 the Supreme Court affirmed that the court may grant declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the negative promise not to sue elsewhere even when no arbitration is on foot or proposed. The jurisdiction derives from section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and from the inherent powers of the court. The remedy protects the integrity of the arbitration agreement and operates independently of the machinery of the Arbitration Act 1996. That proposition continues to organise applications for anti-suit relief.
Brexit altered the external constraints on this remedial jurisdiction. When the Brussels regime applied, the case law of the Court of Justice curtailed the use of anti-suit injunctions directed at proceedings in other Member States. Turner v Grovit C-159/02 and Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc C-185/07 exemplified the prohibition by appealing to mutual trust between courts within the system. The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union removed that categorical inhibition. English courts have since considered applications that seek to restrain proceedings in Member States where they breach jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. Comity remains a constant discipline and the absence of an external veto does not convert the remedy into a routine instrument.
UniCredit also exposes the interaction between English orders and foreign measures that aim to disable them. Russian legislation now authorises domestic anti-anti-suit mechanisms with heavy penalties. The Supreme Court recorded that statutory background yet did not treat it as a reason to refrain from enforcing an English law contract. The later appellate history illustrates the flexibility of equitable relief. On 11 February 2025 the Court of Appeal varied aspects of the final order in light of coercive Russian measures that threatened substantial penalties unless the English injunction was neutralised. The court acted under CPR 3.1(7) and left the jurisdictional analysis intact while adapting the form of relief to new facts. The episode demonstrates how English courts calibrate remedies to protect contractual bargains while remaining attentive to fairness and comity.