Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v PJSC Transneft & Ors

An interim anti-anti-suit injunction may be granted before the English court has determined whether England is the natural forum. This is appropriate where a foreign anti-suit injunction would stymie the English jurisdictional challenge and expose the English claimant to penal consequences. The injunction should be confined to preserving a level playing field until jurisdiction is decided, with due regard to comity. An anti-enforcement injunction may be granted where necessary to make the interim protection effective. Material non-disclosure on a without-notice application normally supports discharge, but the court retains a discretion to continue relief where justice and proportionality require it.

The claimants brought English proceedings alleging conspiracies concerning Russian commercial assets. Transneft, a Russian state-controlled company, challenged English jurisdiction and also obtained anti-suit injunctions from the Moscow Court under articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The Russian orders prohibited continuation of the English proceedings and provided for penalties of US$2.5 billion against Mr Magomedov and US$5 billion against Port Petrovsk.

Foxton J had granted an interim anti-anti-suit injunction without notice. At the return hearing, the claimants sought its continuation, together with anti-enforcement and anti-reliance relief. Transneft sought to set aside the order for legal error and material non-disclosure. The central issues were whether interim anti-anti-suit relief could be granted before determination of the natural forum, and what consequence should follow from the imperfect without-notice presentation.

1. Interim anti-anti-suit relief. The ordinary principles governing anti-suit injunctions apply, but they must be used flexibly. An interim anti-anti-suit injunction can be granted before the English court decides whether England is the natural forum where the foreign injunction is intended to prevent that determination and would expose the English claimant to penal consequences. The court must preserve the opportunity to decide its own jurisdiction, while minimising interference with the foreign court.
2. The relevant circumstances were that Transneft had arranged for the Russian proceedings and the English jurisdictional challenge to operate asymmetrically, creating a choice between abandoning the English claim or risking penalties of US$7.5 billion. That conduct was unconscionable. The relief sought was temporary and would end if the jurisdictional challenge succeeded or England was found not to be the natural forum.
3. The Russian court’s invocation of article 248 was not, on the evidence, contrary to customary international law or productive of manifest injustice. Transneft’s difficulties in paying English lawyers provided a factual basis for concern about access to justice. The court expressed misgivings about the disproportionate fixed penalties, but treated that issue separately from the validity in principle of article 248.
4. Non-disclosure. The claimants should have disclosed Transneft’s evidence concerning its chronic difficulties in paying English lawyers and the true position concerning notice of the Russian proceedings. The omission was significant and culpable, and caused the claimants’ comity argument to be materially overstated. Nevertheless, the court retained a discretion to continue the injunction because the primary AASI argument remained sound and discharge would expose the claimants to a disproportionate risk of US$7.5 billion.
5. The interim AASI was continued until determination of the jurisdictional challenge or earlier order. An interim AEI was granted because it was essential to make the AASI effective. The requested ARI was refused. Costs were reserved, with the non-disclosure to be reflected in the costs order.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerned the return hearing of an interim anti-anti-suit injunction granted by Foxton J on 21 February 2024.