UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tom Sprange KC, Shouvik Bhattacharya, Sadyant Sasiprabhu and Alice Konneh, King & Spalding International LLP
the injunction had been overtaken by a foreign judg - ment, and Maxamcorp faced the classic anti-enforce - ment problem: how to give practical effect to English relief that a party had simply ignored. On 13 March 2026, Bryan J continued the injunctions and went further, varying the mandatory component of Andrew Baker J’s order to require Eurotel not merely to stay the Russian proceedings but to take all steps within its power to set aside the 4 March Russian court judgment. Maxamcorp underscores a hard practical truth: an anti- suit injunction may be granted as a matter of course, but where the foreign court does not recognise foreign injunctions, there remains a real risk that proceedings will continue regardless. Anti-enforcement relief is the answer to that risk, protecting the innocent party by preventing the party in breach from deriving any prac - tical benefit from a judgment obtained in disregard of the arbitration agreement. The approach taken in Maxamcorp builds on Ust - Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust - Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35, where the Supreme Court confirmed that the Eng - lish court’s power to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement is not dependent on any existing or proposed arbitration, but instead is grounded in the parties’ contractual promise to arbi - trate within the jurisdiction. That approach is also con - sistent with the earlier recognition in West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA [2007] UKHL 4 that, under Section 37 (1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the High Court may grant an injunction “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”, and that the English courts had “regularly exercised this power”. Maxamcorp also confirms that English courts may, in the appropriate circumstances, also bind a non-signa - tory who seeks to enforce derived contractual rights. Eurotel advanced claims as assignee of rights under the relevant supply agreements. The court’s willing - ness to grant relief in that context reflects the broader principle that a party who seeks to take the benefit of contractual rights cannot ordinarily disregard the dis - pute resolution machinery attached to them. Assign -
ment may change the identity of the claimant, but it does not necessarily free the claim from the arbitration agreement governing the rights asserted. Finally, Maxamcorp shows that the core of the anti-suit remedy remains discretionary. In Aggeliki Charis Com- pania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA ( The Angelic Grace ), the court made clear that, where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of a legal right to arbitrate, an anti-suit injunction will ordinarily be granted unless there is good reason to refuse relief. Delay, submission to the foreign court, comity and the construction of competing clauses are all live considerations. Max- amcorp demonstrates that delay will not necessarily defeat an application where the applicant has con - sistently asserted its rights. The court’s discretion is therefore real, albeit exercised within a framework that gives substantial weight to enforcing the contractual bargain to arbitrate. The combined effect of Chubb Bermuda and Max- amcorp is to reduce the strategic value of commenc - ing, continuing or accelerating foreign proceedings in breach of a London-seated arbitration agreement. FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank [2025] A contrasting example to both Chubb Bermuda and Maxamcorp is the recent decision in FH Holding Mos- cow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank EWHC [2025] 3111 (Comm), which shows that the English courts’ willing - ness to protect arbitration agreements is not unquali - fied. In this case, FH, a Cyprus company operating solely in Russia, had borrowed under an English-law facility agreement containing a Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) arbitration clause seated in Vienna, while the related Russian-law mortgage was subject to the Moscow Commercial Court. After pay - ment difficulties linked to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and sanctions, AO UniCredit commenced foreclosure proceedings in Moscow against Russian real estate security. FH Holding sought an anti-suit injunction from the English Commercial Court, arguing that the issues should first be determined in arbitration under the facility agreement. Henshaw J refused relief in November 2025, and on 17 April 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court was not persuaded that there was
1099 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook