Google LLC & Anor v Nao Tsargrad Media

Post-judgment anti-enforcement relief may be granted where foreign proceedings were brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration agreement and enforcement is being pursued elsewhere. The fact that relief was not sought before judgment is not decisive. It is a materially distinguishing circumstance where the foreign orders impose exceptionally exorbitant penalties, enforcement is sought against non-parties, and there is no realistic prospect of compliance with an English injunction being required in the foreign court. Delay will not ordinarily defeat relief where enforcement steps remain at an early stage and are adequately explained. The absence of a legitimate juridical advantage in the foreign proceedings supports relief. Related anti-anti-suit orders, without-notice treatment, privacy protection and alternative service may also be appropriate where necessary to protect the effectiveness of the orders.

Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited brought four connected claims against Russian entities. Three were Part 8 claims and one was a Part 62 claim concerning an arbitration agreement. The claims arose after Google suspended or terminated contractual internet and social-media services. The Russian entities commenced proceedings in the Moscow Court seeking restoration of those services, relying on article 248 of the Arbitrazh Court Procedural Code despite contractual provisions selecting the courts of England and Wales or LCIA arbitration in London.

The Russian proceedings resulted in escalating astreinte penalties, with enforcement steps pursued or contemplated in several foreign jurisdictions. The defendants did not attend or participate. The central issues were whether the jurisdiction and arbitration agreements had been established, whether article 248 was mandatory, and whether anti-enforcement, anti-suit and related protective orders should be granted after judgment in the foreign proceedings.

1. Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements. The claimants established, to the high evidential standard applicable on the application, the relevant exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration agreements. The contractual terms had also been relied on by the Russian parties in the Moscow proceedings.
2. Article 248. On the Russian law evidence, article 248 of the Arbitrazh Court Procedural Code was permissive rather than mandatory. It entitled a sanctioned party to commence proceedings in Russia but did not require it to do so. Accordingly, the contractual provisions were not displaced by a mandatory local-law requirement.
3. Post-judgment anti-enforcement relief. Although post-judgment anti-suit relief engages acute comity concerns, the omission of an earlier application was of relatively minor significance here. The astreinte orders were said to impose exorbitant and escalating penalties, potentially against Google entities which were neither parties to the contracts nor to the Russian litigation. There was no real prospect of effective enforcement of an English order by the Moscow Court, so the usual concern about wasted resources did not arise. Those features materially distinguished the case from the general run of post-judgment applications.
4. Delay and juridical advantage. Pre-judgment delay was adequately explained, and post-judgment delay did not justify refusal because the known enforcement proceedings remained at an early stage. The Russian entities had no legitimate juridical advantage in commencing or continuing the proceedings in Russia, since legal expenses could be licensed and English courts and London arbitrators could accommodate the necessary delays.
5. Further protective and procedural orders. Anti-anti-suit injunctions were appropriate because there was a clear and overwhelming risk of applications to the Moscow Court. The applications properly remained without notice, and blanket privacy was ordered until service. Alternative service was permitted in the exceptional circumstances, given the coercive nature of the orders and the need for prompt notice.
6. The court was prepared in principle to grant the anti-enforcement, anti-suit and anti-anti-suit orders, subject to resolving matters of detail in the form of the order.