UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC

A final anti-suit injunction may, in an appropriate and exceptional case, be varied or revoked under CPR Part 3.1(7). The importance of finality remains substantial, but its weight depends on the nature of the order and proceedings. A final anti-suit injunction is a continuing coercive order, for which the distinction between interim and final relief may carry less force.

The court must undertake a discretionary balance. Commercial pressure created by a foreign in personam order does not ordinarily deprive a sophisticated commercial party of its choice to seek relief. Public-policy concerns, including non-compliance with an arbitration agreement and contempt of court, may be relevant but need not be decisive. The court may discharge the injunctive relief while preserving declarations that remain correct.

UniCredit, a German bank, had issued performance and advance-payment bonds in favour of RusChemAlliance LLC. The bonds were governed by English law and contained Paris arbitration agreements. After RusChemAlliance began proceedings in Russia, the Court of Appeal granted UniCredit a final anti-suit injunction.

The Supreme Court upheld that order on the issue of English jurisdiction in [2024] UKSC 30. RusChemAlliance then obtained a ruling from the St Petersburg Court requiring UniCredit to take measures to cancel the Court of Appeal’s order, backed by a potential €250 million penalty.

UniCredit, supported by RusChemAlliance, applied to vary or revoke the final injunction. The central questions were whether the Court of Appeal had power to alter its final order and whether discretion should be exercised despite finality, commercial pressure, public policy and RusChemAlliance’s contempt of the English order.

Application granted unanimously. The Court of Appeal varied its earlier order by discharging its injunctive parts, while retaining the declaratory parts concerning English jurisdiction.

1. CPR Part 3.1(7) gave the court power, in an appropriate case, to revoke or vary a final anti-suit injunction. Finality made such relief rare, but did not create an absolute bar. Its weight depended on the nature of the order and proceedings. A final anti-suit injunction is a continuing coercive order in private commercial litigation, and there is less logic in treating it as incapable of discharge merely because it is final.

2. The court left open whether an applicant invoking CPR Part 3.1(7) to alter a Court of Appeal order must always satisfy CPR Part 52.30. If that rule applied, however, its conditions were met: reopening was necessary to avoid real injustice, the circumstances were exceptional, and there was no alternative effective remedy.

3. There was a real, though uncertain, risk that the Russian court might impose the threatened penalty if the order remained. That risk was relevant but not conclusive. UniCredit was acting under commercial pressure, but was a sophisticated commercial party capable of deciding its own interests; the pressure was not a weighty reason to refuse relief.

4. Public-policy concerns did not outweigh the application. The Russian ruling was an in personam order against UniCredit, not pressure exerted upon the English court. The court did not depart from the policy favouring arbitration under the New York Convention, but UniCredit could in substance waive its right to arbitrate. There was no applicable UK sanctions bar. RusChemAlliance’s change of position and contempt were factors requiring disapproval, but did not justify exposing UniCredit to potentially massive Russian penalties.

5. It was therefore just and fair to grant relief. The declarations reflecting the prior decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court remained correct and were preserved. Only the restraints on proceedings, the order to discontinue the Russian proceedings, and the restraint on enforcing a Russian ruling were discharged.

• UK Supreme Court: upheld the earlier Court of Appeal order on the issue of English jurisdiction only: [2024] UKSC 30.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): previously allowed UniCredit’s appeal and granted final anti-suit relief on 29 January 2024; in this judgment it varied that order by discharging its injunctive parts: [2025] EWCA Civ 99.
• Commercial Court: Sir Nigel Teare allowed RusChemAlliance’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court on 22 September 2023. A citation is not stated in the judgment.