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

An anti-suit injunction is a discretionary and exceptional remedy. In a single-forum case, the absence of an alternative English forum is not a legal threshold which prevents relief, although comity requires great caution.

An applicant must nevertheless place before the court the fullest possible information about circumstances material to the discretion. Where the applicant withholds documents explaining its relationship with foreign defendants and its potential exposure to liability, the court may refuse an injunction because it cannot make a reliable and rational discretionary decision.

The appellant, a Cypriot investment-services company, had entered into agreements with the respondents containing English-law LCIA arbitration clauses with a London seat. After the appellant declined to transfer assets on sanctions grounds, the respondents pursued Russian claims against three Russian companies said to be affiliated with the appellant.

The appellant sought to extend earlier anti-suit relief so as to require withdrawal of those Russian claims. HHJ Pelling KC dismissed that application in the Commercial Court: [2024] EWHC 2843 (Comm). He held that the arbitration clauses did not cover claims involving the Russian companies and treated the absence of an alternative forum as fatal to the non-contractual anti-suit application.

The appeal concerned the construction of the arbitration clauses and whether the Russian proceedings should be restrained as vexatious and oppressive.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The court refused the anti-suit injunction and discharged the interim injunction. The decisive basis was that the appellant had not provided the court with the fullest possible knowledge and understanding of circumstances material to the discretionary relief sought.

2. The evidence showed that two Russian entities had been sold after the first-instance decision, while the third denied affiliation. The appellant refused to disclose the sale agreements or explain adequately whether it remained exposed to liability, contribution, or indemnity claims arising from the Russian proceedings. Those matters were material to its asserted legitimate interest in restraining proceedings against entities which it said were no longer affiliates. In a remedy with serious implications for international comity, the court could not exercise its discretion on an incomplete evidential basis.

3. Singh LJ held that the judge had erred in treating the availability of an alternative forum as a threshold requirement in a single-forum anti-suit case. Under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, an injunction may still be available where the ends of justice require it, subject to sufficient English interest and comity. Males LJ and Phillips LJ found it unnecessary to decide that issue because the evidential deficiency was dispositive.

4. Singh LJ would also have rejected the contractual basis. The arbitration agreements did not contain the alleged negative obligation preventing proceedings against non-party affiliates, and implying one would rewrite the parties’ bargain. Males LJ considered that an implied anti-circumvention obligation might be arguable on the unusual facts, but left the point open; Phillips LJ likewise expressed no view.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed; the interim injunction made on 8 January 2025 was discharged: [2025] EWCA Civ 369.
• High Court, Commercial Court: HHJ Pelling KC dismissed the appellant’s application to extend anti-suit relief to the Russian proceedings against the Russian entities, and stayed the respondents’ cross-application pending the appeal: [2024] EWHC 2843 (Comm).