English courts reinforce their power to grant anti-suit injunctions in international disputes

Simon Bushell
Seladore Legal, London
simon.bushell@seladorelegal.com

Kevin Kilgour
Seladore Legal, London
kevin.kilgour@seladorelegal.com

Maitreyee Dixit
Seladore Legal, London
maitreyee.dixit@seladorelegal.com

Introduction

For many years, the English courts have played a central role in resolving international commercial disputes. With their established legal framework, they have long been a preferred forum for parties seeking clarity and fairness in cross-border matters. However, recent geopolitical and legal developments – most notably Brexit and changes to Russian law – have led to an increase in applications for anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) and anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASIs) in the English courts.

While Brexit has given English courts greater freedom to issue ASIs in cases involving European Union jurisdictions, legislative changes in Russia have sought to bring more disputes within the jurisdiction of Russian courts. In response, English courts have reaffirmed their commitment to upholding access to justice within English courts, whether by enforcing jurisdiction agreements and arbitration clauses or ensuring parties get their day in court.

Legal shifts following Brexit and Russian sanctions

For many years, the Brussels regime provided a clear framework for determining jurisdiction in disputes involving EU and European Free Trade Area (EFTA) states. Under those rules, English courts were generally unable to grant ASIs in disputes involving EU courts as jurisdiction was determined in accordance with EU law. With Brexit, those restrictions no longer apply,[1] and English courts can now grant ASIs against proceedings in EU jurisdictions in cases where they determine that an English jurisdiction clause has been breached.

At the same time, legislative changes in Russia have altered the way international disputes involving Russian entities are handled. The introduction of Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code has given Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Russian entities where the dispute arises as a result of the sanctions. These provisions have also been used to override arbitration agreements and jurisdiction clauses that would otherwise have required disputes to be resolved outside Russia.

In some cases, Russian courts have granted ASIs preventing parties from continuing proceedings abroad. These injunctions have included significant financial penalties for non-compliance, leaving businesses in a difficult position when faced with competing orders from courts in different jurisdictions. This has led to an increase in applications for AASIs in the English courts, as parties seek relief from the impact of foreign ASIs that could interfere with their ability to pursue claims in their chosen forum.

A seminal case: Magomedov v PJSC Transneft

One of the most significant recent cases in this area is Magomedov v PJSC Transneft [2024] EWHC 1176 (Comm). The case highlights the willingness of the English courts to grant AASIs and anti-enforcement injunctions (AEIs) where foreign ASIs could impact proceedings in England.

In this case, the claimants had initiated proceedings in England against PJSC Transneft. In response, Transneft obtained an ASI from the Russian courts, requiring the claimants to withdraw their English proceedings or face significant financial penalties. Recognising the potential impact of the Russian ASI, the English High Court granted:

• an AASI preventing Transneft from enforcing the Russian ASI against the claimants; and
• an AEI preventing Transneft from enforcing any penalties linked to the Russian ASI

Key considerations in the judgment

AASIs granted in non-contractual cases

ASIs and AASIs have traditionally been granted where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement. In Magomedov, the English court granted the injunctions despite the absence of a contractually agreed forum, reinforcing the principle that these injunctions may be available in certain cases where foreign ASIs threaten the fair resolution of a dispute.

Jurisdictional challenges and interim relief

The English court had not yet determined whether England was the natural forum for the dispute, as the jurisdictional challenge was scheduled for a later date. Nevertheless, it decided to grant the AASI and AEI on an interim basis to prevent enforcement of the Russian ASI until the jurisdictional challenge had been resolved.[2]

Balancing comity and access to justice

The judgment acknowledged the importance of respecting foreign legal systems but also emphasised that respect for comity should not prevent parties from being able to pursue their claims in England where they have a valid basis to do so. The injunctions were issued as interim measures to ensure that the English courts had the opportunity to determine their jurisdiction without external interference.

Magomedov sets an important precedent, confirming that English courts are prepared to grant AASIs and AEIs in cases where foreign ASIs might obstruct their ability to decide jurisdiction fairly.

The English courts step in to protect arbitration agreements

Courts have also been called upon to clarify their approach to arbitration agreements, particularly in cases where the seat of arbitration is outside England. In UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC, the UK Supreme Court upheld an ASI against Russian proceedings that were in breach of an arbitration agreement for International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in Paris.

A key issue in the case was whether an English court could issue an ASI where the seat of arbitration was not in England. The Supreme Court confirmed that the choice of a foreign arbitration seat does not, in itself, prevent the English courts from granting an ASI where the arbitration agreement is governed by English law. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties to an arbitration agreement should be held to their bargain, even where the arbitration itself is seated outside England.

This decision is particularly relevant in light of recent developments in Russian law, where arbitration agreements have been overridden in favour of Russian court jurisdiction. The ruling provides assurance that English courts will continue to support arbitration agreements governed by English law, even in cases where arbitration takes place elsewhere.

Practical considerations: the court’s willingness to modify ASIs

While recent cases demonstrate the English courts’ readiness to grant ASIs and AASIs, they have also highlighted a pragmatic approach where commercial considerations require flexibility.

In UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99, the Court of Appeal considered a situation where a party that had obtained a final ASI later asked for it to be modified. The reason for the request was that the Russian courts had issued an ASI requiring the party to cancel the English ASI or face a substantial financial penalty. The Court of Appeal agreed to modify the ASI, recognising that the party faced significant commercial consequences and that jurisdictional disputes often involve competing orders from different courts.

This decision acknowledges the practical realities of international disputes. Courts will consider the commercial implications of their orders and, in some cases, may be willing to adjust their approach to avoid undue hardship for the parties involved.

Conclusion

Recent developments in ASIs and AASIs highlight the English courts’ ongoing role in cross-border dispute resolution. As international disputes become increasingly complex, ASIs and AASIs are likely to remain an important tool for parties seeking to enforce jurisdiction agreements and prevent foreign legal interference. While the courts have shown a willingness to adapt their approach where necessary, they remain firm in their commitment to ensuring access to justice and enforcement of contractual bargains.