In this case, Airbus Canada sought an anti-suit injunction from the English High Court to prevent Ilyushin Finance Co. from pursuing legal action in Russia, as well as an anti-enforcement injunction. The Russian entity had initiated proceedings in Russia despite an existing arbitration agreement that designated London as seat of the arbitration. The High Court granted the injunctions, emphasising the practical importance of the anti-suit injunction despite the likelihood of non-compliance by the defendant, and of the anti-enforcement injunction due to the real risk posed by a Russian judgment.
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership v. Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Finance Co (No. 2) [2024] EWHC 790
The English High Court continued an anti-anti-suit injunction and granted an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent the enforcement of a Russian anti-suit injunction imposed under Article 248 APC. The Court held that it was right in principle to continue the anti-anti suit injunction pending determination of the challenge against the jurisdiction of the English courts. It further held that the anti-enforcement injunction was essential in this case if the anti-anti-suit injunction was to be effective.
Magomedov v. PJSC Transneft [2024] EWHC 1176 (Comm)
Sovcombank initiated legal proceedings in Russia, invoking Article 248 of the APC. Barclays sought an anti-suit injunction and an anti-enforcement injunction from the English High Court, arguing that the Russian proceedings were in breach of the contractual agreement to resolve disputes in English courts. The court granted the injunction, highlighting the need to respect the parties' choice of law and choice of forum.
Barclays Bank PLC v. PJSC Sovcombank & Anor [2024] EWHC 1338
In this case, UniCredit Bank sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent RusChemAlliance from pursuing claims in Russian courts. The dispute arose from a contractual agreement that provided for English law and Paris-seated arbitration. The Court of Appeal of England & Wales granted the anti-suit injunction, considering that (i) the arbitration agreement was also governed by English law and (ii) England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim, despite the Paris seat. This decision was confirmed by the UK Supreme Court.
The UK Court of Appeal later reversed the anti-suit injunction against RusChemAlliance after UniCredit requested its removal to avoid a substantial fine from the Russian courts.
UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30