UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tom Sprange KC, Shouvik Bhattacharya, Sadyant Sasiprabhu and Alice Konneh, King & Spalding International LLP
suing either the English action or any arbitration, and a further Louisiana injunction followed. Chubb was forced to litigate in the United States, and ultimately persuaded the Fifth Circuit in December 2025 to dis - miss the Louisiana case against it for want of personal jurisdiction. Undeterred, the insureds commenced fresh Louisiana proceedings in early 2026, contending that the arbitration agreement was contrary to Louisi - ana public policy and that Chubb had waived its right to arbitrate by litigating in England (even though that litigation sought to preserve the parties’ bargain to arbitrate). On 9 June 2026, Bright J granted final anti-suit relief restraining the defendants from pursuing Louisiana proceedings brought in breach of the parties’ arbitra - tion agreement. The court’s reasoning turned on the parties’ contractual agreement, which required dis - putes to be resolved by arbitration seated in London and provided that matters concerning the existence of the arbitration agreement were to be governed by English law. The insureds’ reliance on Louisiana law, the alleged lack of connection with England and the contention that Louisiana was the more suitable forum did not provide a sufficient answer once the court was satisfied that the arbitration agreement was valid and applicable, with Bright J noting that, if “the arbitration agreement is valid”, the insureds’ contrary objections “do not matter”. In Chubb Bermuda , the court not only restrained fur - ther pursuit of the Louisiana proceedings, but also granted a mandatory injunction requiring the insureds to take steps to bring their latest Louisiana proceed - ings to an end. Bright J went further and awarded Chubb damages exceeding USD709,000, repre - senting the legal costs it had incurred in extricating itself from the Louisiana proceedings, together with an indemnity in respect of future US legal costs, and declarations recording both the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement and the insureds’ breaches of the earlier interim injunction. The practical lesson is that once a breach of an arbi - tration agreement is established and no strong reason to refuse relief exists, the court will not confine itself to prospective restraint. It can, and will if persuaded, hold the breaching party financially responsible for the
costs of the wrong and make the declarations needed to arm the innocent party for any further skirmishes abroad. Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] If Chubb Bermuda illustrates anti-suit relief operating preventatively, Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] highlights the corrective function of anti- enforcement relief where a party has pressed on with foreign litigation regardless. Between 2020 and 2022, Maxamcorp, a Spanish company, entered into a series of supply agreements. Those agreements contained a variety of arbitration clauses: LCIA arbitration seated in London, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) arbitration in Hong Kong and ICC arbitration with no designated seat. Following what Maxamcorp characterised as a corporate raid, rights said to arise under the agreements were purportedly assigned through a chain of transactions to Eurotel, a Russian company. Eurotel then sued Maxamcorp in the Voro - nezh Arbitrazh Court in Russia to recover the sums assigned to it. This case arose from Russian proceedings brought by Eurotel in the Voronezh Arbitrazh Court, and is a useful illustration of the English court’s willingness to grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief against a party seeking to enforce assigned contractual rights where those rights are subject to arbitration agreements. The case also raises a different question from the purely preventative case: where a party has pressed ahead abroad, and even obtained a foreign judgment despite an arbitration agreement, can the English court still give practical effect to the parties’ bargain to arbi - trate? Maxamcorp obtained an interim ex parte order from Andrew Baker J on 2 March 2026, including anti- suit and anti-enforcement relief directed at prevent - ing Eurotel from pursuing foreign court proceedings in breach of the relevant arbitration agreements. Eurotel’s response demonstrated the limits of purely prospective relief against a determined litigant in an uncooperative forum. Its representatives told the Rus - sian court that the English order had no effect on the Russian proceedings, and the Russian court granted Eurotel’s claim in full on 4 March 2026, two days after the English injunction. By the return date, therefore,
1098 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook