Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v Chlodwig Enterprises Limited & Ors

The court may grant an anti-suit injunction where a foreign claim is brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, provided the applicant establishes to a high degree of probability that the dispute falls within the agreement. The respondent must then show strong reasons to refuse relief. The court may also grant an anti-anti-suit injunction where foreign proceedings or countermeasures threaten to defeat the contractual arbitration bargain. Comity requires particular caution, but that concern is reduced where the foreign proceedings themselves breach the arbitration agreement. Relief may be granted urgently and without notice where notice would defeat its purpose. Delay is assessed in all the circumstances, including prejudice and the stage reached in the foreign proceedings.

RenSec, a Cyprus investment services company, held assets for six corporate defendants under materially identical investment services agreements. Each agreement was governed by English law and required disputes to be resolved by LCIA arbitration seated in London.

After sanctions affected the defendants and the assets, the defendants commenced proceedings in Russian commercial courts seeking recovery of funds and damages. RenSec applied urgently and without notice for anti-suit injunctions restraining the Russian proceedings and anti-anti-suit injunctions preventing the defendants from seeking Russian relief against the English proceedings or arbitration agreements.

The application also raised issues concerning expert evidence on Russian law, private and urgent hearings, alternative service, non-disclosure, penal notices and dispensing with personal service.

1. Anti-suit injunction. Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act empowers the court to grant an interim injunction where it is just and convenient. The jurisdiction includes anti-suit relief, but must be exercised with due circumspection.
2. Where proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration clause, relief will ordinarily be granted unless strong reasons for refusing it are shown. The applicant must establish to a high degree of probability that the arbitration agreement governs the dispute. It is not necessary for arbitration proceedings to have commenced, and damages will generally be inadequate. The applicant must act promptly.
3. RenSec established to the requisite standard that the Russian claims fell within the LCIA clauses. The defendants had deliberately chosen to litigate in Russia despite their contractual obligations. Article 248 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code did not prevent the English court determining its own jurisdiction as a matter of private international law.
4. The sanctions context independently made relief just and convenient. Permitting the Russian proceedings to continue could enable the defendants to bypass sanctions, while an English arbitration could properly consider the effect of sanctions on RenSec’s contractual obligations.
5. Anti-anti-suit injunction. The same principles applied. Although comity required particular caution, an injunction was justified because the threatened Russian anti-suit relief would protect proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreements and could undermine the English court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
6. There had been no undue delay. RenSec had acted after obtaining a sufficiently concrete indication that the arbitration agreements had been breached, and the Russian proceedings remained at an early stage.
7. Ancillary relief. The application was properly heard urgently, without notice and in private because notice or publicity could defeat its purpose. Alternative service was justified by exceptional circumstances, including the probable delay under the Hague Convention and the coercive nature of the injunctions. A temporary non-disclosure order was also appropriate. Personal service on the named individuals could be dispensed with, but dispensing prospectively with service of any future contempt application was premature.

The anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions were granted against all defendants.