Supreme Court gives reasoned judgment upholding anti-suit injunction in support of foreign-seated arbitration

The Supreme Court has this week published a unanimous judgment giving the reasons for its decision in April this year in which it upheld a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain proceedings brought in Russia in breach of agreements for Paris-seated arbitration: UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30.

The sole issue in the appeal was whether the English court had jurisdiction over the claim for the ASI, which in turn depended on whether the Court of Appeal was right to decide that (i) the arbitration agreements were governed by English law and (ii) England and Wales was the proper place to bring the claim. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision on both points.

The judgment demonstrates the English court's willingness to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, even where England is not the seat of arbitration. Parties should be assured that where either the seat or the governing law of the arbitration agreement is English law, the English courts will stand firm in upholding arbitration agreements and provide parties with the requisite support.

ASIs are the obvious tool for international companies to enforce arbitration clauses (and exclusive jurisdiction clauses). Their need has recently been highlighted by the fact that Russian courts have been readily disregarding such agreements in cases involving international sanctions. While an English ASI may not prevent the commencement or continuation of Russian proceedings, it will prevent enforcement of the resulting Russian judgment in England and should, in most cases, make it more difficult to enforce in third countries.

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