Nicola Sharp looks at the reasons why the UK courts recently granted an anti-enforcement injunction to pause proceedings in the US.
Back in November 2018, the English courts awarded default judgment to Dr Williams against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federal Government of Nigeria (together, Nigeria or the Claimants). The default judgment awarded Dr Williams around $15 million plus costs.
Later, Nigeria alleged that the judgment was obtained fraudulently, on the grounds that Dr Willliams had forged and fabricated certain documents. Dr Williams disputed this and applied to strike out the claim. In May 2025, the court dismissed Dr Williams’ application and allowed the proceedings to continue. Read more about that judgment in our article.
One of the things that Nigeria requested in the most recent hearing was an anti-enforcement injunction, which would restrain Dr Williams from progressing his claim in the United States. Dr Williams sought recognition and enforcement of the default judgment (which awarded him $15 million plus costs) in the New York Courts. Nigeria wanted an anti-enforcement injunction so that they could pause those proceedings until the final decision in the English courts, about whether or not the judgment had been obtained fraudulently.
The Commercial Court granted the anti-enforcement injunction.
In this article we look at the reasons why the Commercial Court found that it was in the interests of justice to restrain the New York proceedings.
Comity considerations
Anti-enforcement injunctions are rarely granted because comity considerations usually make it inappropriate to grant such an injunction. The anti-enforcement injunction has the effect of indirectly interfering in the processes of a foreign court. For that reason it is a strong step, for which clear justification must be required.
However, this was not a case where the Claimants sought to prevent enforcement of a judgment that a foreign court had already issued. The Commercial Court was asked to grant an injunction designed to protect the integrity of the English court’s own processes. The injunction would prevent the risk of the court’s own judgment from being used as an instrument of fraud.
Would enforcement of the judgment be vexatious and oppressive?
In this case, the Claimants argued that the enforcement of the default judgment (giving $15m to Dr Williams) in the US would be vexatious and oppressive. They said that the English court must first determine whether the default judgment should be set aside, on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud.
The judge considered that it would be vexatious and oppressive for Dr Williams to enforce the default judgment in the US before the UK court had determined the Claimants’ claim to have the judgment set aside for fraud.
Balancing the risks
The Court decided that there would be a risk of “irreparable prejudice” to the Claimants if Dr Williams could enforce the default judgment in the US. The sums paid to him could be irrecoverable.
On the other hand, the prejudice to Dr Williams in granting the anti-enforcement injunction was more limited. If the judgment is not set aside for fraud, then Dr Williams would suffer delay in being able to enforce the default judgment in the US. But he will receive the benefit of accrued interest, and may be entitled to compensation under a cross-undertaking in damages given by the Claimants.
Read the judgment here: Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor v Louis Emovbira Williams [2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm)
Comment
In many ways, this decision is straightforward. It would be obscure if the UK courts supported the enforcement of a judgment overseas, which may have been obtained by fraud in the first place. As the Court said, the risks around that outcome outweigh the risks of delaying the enforcement, if it is later found that there was no fraud at play to obtain the judgment.
The New York Court also expressed willingness to await the outcome of the UK court’s decision, so the principles of comity were respected.
In any event, the comity considerations applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments are less likely to be of concern in relation to an anti-enforcement injunction which is granted by an English court in respect of an English judgment.
