The Commercial Court has granted an anti-suit injunction and anti-enforcement injunction against proceedings that were commenced in Russia, in breach of arbitration agreements.
The decision in Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm)continues a trend in the UK courts that confirm that they are willing to intervene to uphold arbitration agreements. There have been several cases recently in which a party has started proceedings in Russia, and the UK courts have granted an anti-suit injunctions and anti-enforcement injunctions.
Parties facing proceedings abroad (and notably in Russia), which have been brought to circumvent an arbitration agreement, can find protection from the enforcement of the foreign judgment.
Brief background
Eurotel sought to recover sums said to be due under certain supply agreements, and they commenced proceedings against Maxam in the Voronezh Arbitrazh Court in Russia.
However, there were arbitration agreements contained in or incorporated into the supply agreements.
On that basis, the High Court of England and Wales granted an interim anti-suit injunction and anti-enforcement injunction. The order was directed at preventing Eurotel from pursuing the foreign court proceedings. Eurotel ignored the order, continued to pursue the Russian proceedings, and obtained judgment in their favour.
At a hearing in the Commercial Court, Maxam sought continuation of the injunctions, and a further injunction to require Eurotel to take all necessary steps to set aside the Russian judgment.
Anti-suit injunction: the impact of delay
In deciding whether or not to grant to the anti-suit injunction, the Court had to consider the impact of delay. In this case, there was a gap of around 16 months between the commencement of the Russian proceedings and Maxam making the application to the Commercial Court for relief.
Delay is one of the discretionary factors that the Court takes into account when determining whether to grant continued relief. If an applicant has delayed unjustifiably, the relief may not be granted. When looking at this issue, the length of the delay is less important than the extent to which the foreign proceedings have progressed during the delay.
To justify delay in this case, Maxam submitted that:
- the delay did not lead to a substantial waste of costs of the Russian courts' time and resources and,
- the delay does not give rise to considerations of comity (that would weigh against injunctive relief).
The Commercial Court agreed. In addition, it noted that any costs or procedural advancement in Russia were incurred by Eurotel with full knowledge that Maxam expected the arbitration agreements to be respected.
The delay did not militate against granting the relief. The judge noted that it was important that Maxam had not taken a "wait and see" approach only seeking ASI/AEI once it lost its jurisdiction application and/or on the merits in Russia. Instead Maxam sought to cut off the Russian proceedings at the outset through challenging the assignments of agreements in proceedings in Krasnoyarsk and in Murmansk. Those proceedings continued throughout the period of delay.
Anti-suit injunction: voluntary submission
Another factor that can weigh against granting an injunction is whether the applicant has voluntarily submitted to the merits jurisdiction of the foreign court.
In this case, Maxam had filed a defence on the merits. However, it was held that Maxam had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian court. This is because:
- Russian law does not recognise the concept of submitting to jurisdiction by performing procedural actions such as filing a defence on the merits.
- Maxam may have submitted to jurisdiction if it had not challenged jurisdiction in a timely manner before that stage. However, Maxam did challenge jurisdiction before filing a defence on the merits.
- Maxam was not entitled to appeal the dismissal of its motion on jurisdiction unless and until a judgment was rendered on the merits.
The evidence of the expert witness was that Maxam's filing of a statement of defence on the merits after having challenged jurisdiction did not constitute an acknowledgment of or submission to the jurisdiction of the Russian court.
In all the circumstances and in the exercise of the Court's discretion the judge was satisfied that it was appropriate to continue the anti-suit injunction.
Anti-enforcement injunction
Anti-enforcement relief has been granted in a number of recent cases in the context of proceedings commenced in Russia in breach of jurisdiction and arbitration agreements.
In this case the judgment from the Russian court be enforced not only in Russia but in other jurisdictions in which Maxam has assets, operations and commercial relationships. The Commercial Court therefore granted the anti-enforcement relief to protect Maxam in other jurisdictions.
Comment
If proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, then an anti-suit injunction will normally be granted.
However, even in the face of an ASI, there is a real risk that Russian proceedings will continue regardless, as the Russian courts do not recognise foreign anti-suit injunctions. Russian courts can refuse a party’s application to discontinue a claim, and enter judgment anyway. In these circumstances, English courts are willing to grant anti-enforcement injunctions to limit the impact of the Russian judgment.
The English courts will robustly enforce arbitration agreements, but they are alive to the reality that that Russian courts may ignore them. Commercial parties may have to plan for parallel proceedings, and focus on the enforcement strategy to limit the impact of the foreign judgment.
