UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tom Sprange KC, Shouvik Bhattacharya, Sadyant Sasiprabhu and Alice Konneh, King & Spalding International LLP
Three recent cases This section surveys three important recent cases from the English Courts: • Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertain- ment Inc & Ors [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm) on anti-suit injunctions; • Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm), on anti-enforcement relief; and • FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank [2025] EWHC 3111 (Comm), on the limits of the courts’ jurisdiction in ordering anti-suit and anti- enforcement relief. These cases underline why England and Wales (and London in particular) continues to remain an attrac - tive arbitral seat for international parties. The English courts’ robust support for arbitration agreements, as indexed in these cases, sits against a changed post-Brexit backdrop. EU-law constraints that previ - ously limited the English courts’ ability to grant anti- suit relief against EU member state proceedings no longer apply. This has broadened the English toolkit for responding to tactical foreign litigation. The tim - ing has fortuitously coincided with the expansion of international sanctions regimes following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the rising risk of parallel com - mercial disputes. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment Inc & Ors [ 2026 ] Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertain- ment Inc & Ors [2026] is an excellent recent illustration of anti-suit relief operating preventatively. The dispute arose from a Bermuda-issued property insurance pol - icy, which provided that disputes were to be resolved by London-seated arbitration and, critically, that the arbitration agreement itself was governed by English law. When the insureds suffered pandemic-related business-interruption losses, they commenced pro - ceedings in Louisiana rather than commencing arbi - tration. Chubb obtained an interim anti-suit injunction from Jacobs J in January 2025. The insureds then took sev - eral steps seemingly designed to frustrate the English proceedings. The insureds obtained a without-notice restraining order in Louisiana barring Chubb from pur -
Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Relief in English Courts Introduction Commercial parties routinely consent to submit their disputes to arbitration. Sometimes, however, they breach that agreement to arbitrate in one jurisdiction (say, England and Wales) by commencing litigation in a different one (say, Russia) – perhaps such tactical litigation offers a familiar home jurisdiction, a friendlier limitation regime or simply a way to apply commercial pressure. In these circumstances, the aggrieved party can seek to restrain or nullify the effect of such foreign court proceedings by approaching the supervisory court in the jurisdiction the parties agreed to arbitrate in. This chapter surveys three recent cases from the English courts with lessons for parties seeking such anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief. The distinction between anti-suit and anti-enforce - ment relief is one of timing. Anti-suit relief prevents a foreign court decision from crystallising, whereas anti-enforcement relief mitigates the effects of a for - eign judgment already issued in breach of an arbitra - tion agreement. Both remedies operate in personam, targeting the contracting party seeking to litigate in a foreign court rather than the foreign court itself. Anti- suit and anti-enforcement relief have become particu - larly urgent in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing Lugovoy Law, which purports to confer on Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned entities regardless of any dispute resolution provisions (including arbitra - tion agreements) in the contracts of those sanctioned parties. This chapter proceeds as follows. The next part (“Three recent cases”) summarises three recent Eng - lish cases that are instructive regarding the contours of anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief, and illustrate where the courts draw the line in refusing to inter - vene. Then, the practical implications for parties and counsel when drafting arbitration agreements and responding to tactical foreign litigation are described (see “Practical implications for parties and counsel”), followed by the conclusion.
1097 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook