Court of Appeal grants bank's request to discharge final anti-suit injunction in its favour in order to avoid Russian court-imposed penalty

In a highly unusual case, the Court of Appeal has held that it has the power to vary or revoke a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) at the request of the bank which originally obtained it, and that power should be exercised so as to avoid the bank facing a massive penalty imposed by a foreign court: UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99.

The original ASI had prohibited the respondent bringing proceedings in Russia, in breach of agreements for Paris-seated arbitration. But rather than complying, the respondent had obtained its own ASI from the Russian courts, which required the bank to take all measures within its control to cancel the English ASI or face a penalty of €250 million.  

The Court of Appeal took a pragmatic approach in granting the application and discharging the injunctive elements of its previous order. While expressing its disapproval of the respondent's conduct in acting in contempt of the English court, it recognised that many jurisdiction battles will involve one or other party pursuing proceedings in one court in breach of another court's order. Ultimately, the court was swayed by the fact that the bank was a commercial party that was acting in its own interests and had asked the court to revoke or vary the ASI it had previously obtained in light of the changed circumstances. In the court's view, it would be unfair to force it to risk massive penalties in Russia by refusing to take that course.

The decision should not, however, be taken to indicate any lack of will on the part of the English courts when it comes to policing their own orders. In this case, the respondent had no assets or officers in England, and would not have to enforce any judgment in England, and so there was little the English court could do in practice. On the other hand, the bank did have business in Russia and was therefore not in a position to ignore the Russian court's order.

Perhaps the most obvious takeaway from the decision is that, when it comes to jurisdiction battles, the outcome may depend on which party has more to lose in practical terms.

For more information see this post on our Litigation Notes blog.