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

The court may grant an anti-suit injunction where there is a high degree of probability that foreign proceedings breach an arbitration agreement, unless strong reasons justify refusing relief. An interim mandatory anti-suit injunction is exceptional and requires unusually strong and clear evidence, together with a high degree of assurance that final relief would be justified. It may be ordered where a prohibitory injunction is ineffective, the respondent has stolen a march through foreign proceedings, or privacy orders prevent effective monitoring. The court must assess the lesser risk of injustice if wrong. Urgency, apparent breaches of existing orders and the risk that foreign proceedings will proceed despite an application for an adjournment may justify immediate mandatory relief requiring withdrawal of the foreign claims.

Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited sought continuation of anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions previously granted in relation to Russian proceedings brought by six defendant companies. The claims concerned investments frozen under Western sanctions and were subject to English-law investment agreements requiring LCIA arbitration in London.

The defendants did not attend or obtain English representation. They opposed proceeding in their absence, relied on sanctions-related difficulties, asserted compliance with the existing orders, and maintained that the Russian proceedings could be adjourned. The central issues were whether the hearing should proceed, whether prohibitory relief remained appropriate, and whether interim mandatory relief requiring withdrawal of the Russian claims should be granted.

1. Hearing in the defendants’ absence. The defendants had proper notice and had had ample time to obtain English representation. Their choice to instruct a firm with a United States connection did not justify further delay. The urgency of imminent Russian hearings, evidence of possible breaches of the existing injunctions, privacy applications and the risk that the Russian courts might proceed on the merits meant that justice required the hearing to continue.
2. Prohibitory anti-suit relief. There was a high degree of probability, indeed virtual certainty, that the arbitration clauses governed the disputes and that the Russian proceedings breached them. The ordinary principles for an anti-suit injunction were satisfied. No contrary argument or strong reason for refusing relief had been advanced.
3. Interim mandatory relief. The court had power under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Mandatory relief was exceptional and required unusually strong and clear evidence and a high degree of assurance that it would be justified at trial. Those requirements were met. At least some defendants appeared to have continued pursuing the Russian proceedings, making prohibitory relief ineffective. The risk of the defendants obtaining an advantage through the Russian proceedings was acute, particularly given Article 248 of the Russian Commercial Procedural Code and the evidence from the Transneft proceedings.
4. The defendants’ applications for private hearings increased the need for withdrawal because they prevented Renaissance from monitoring compliance. Final relief would be too late, and there was no real prospect that further evidence would materially alter the position. The lesser risk of injustice favoured mandatory relief even if withdrawal might complicate any future Russian proceedings.
5. The court also dispensed prospectively with personal service under CPR 81.4(2)(c), applying the exceptional and sparing approach to that discretion. The existing orders were continued and interim mandatory relief requiring withdrawal of the Russian proceedings was granted.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier interlocutory orders by Dias J and Butcher J in the same proceedings, including [2023] EWHC 2816 (Comm) and [2023] EWHC 3160 (Comm).