Google LLC & Anor v NAO Tsargard Media & Ors

An anti-enforcement injunction may restrain a party from enforcing abroad a judgment obtained in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement. The injunction operates in personam and is directed to the judgment creditor, not the foreign court.

The governing question is whether relief is just and convenient under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37(1). There is no separate jurisdictional requirement of exceptionality, but such relief is rare because delay, comity, waste of foreign judicial resources and interference with enforcement courts ordinarily weigh heavily against it. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the stage and territorial scope of enforcement, the applicant’s explanation for delay, and whether the applicant submitted to the foreign jurisdiction.

Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited sought final anti-enforcement injunctions, with ancillary anti-anti-suit relief, against three Russian media organisations. The defendants had obtained Russian judgments requiring restoration of YouTube services and imposing rapidly compounding astreinte penalties. They then began recognition and enforcement proceedings in several foreign jurisdictions.

Google relied on English exclusive jurisdiction clauses and an LCIA arbitration agreement. The defendants argued that the YouTube clause was non-exclusive, that Russian mandatory law displaced the contractual forum, that Google had submitted to the Russian proceedings, and that delay and comity required refusal of relief. The central issues were the construction of the YouTube clause, submission, and whether final anti-enforcement relief was just and convenient.

1. Jurisdiction and contractual basis. The court had jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2B)(b) and CPR 62.5(2A). The Platform Terms contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the Content Agreement contained an LCIA arbitration agreement seated in London.
2. YouTube clause. Read as a whole, the reference to disputes being capable of being brought in England did not make the clause non-exclusive. The clause required disputes to be resolved in England unless, and only if, mandatory law in the user’s country meant that they could not be resolved there under English law. Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code did not have that effect. It operated at the option of the sanctioned party, preserved the ability to sue or be sued abroad, and allowed resulting foreign judgments to be enforceable in Russia in specified circumstances. The clause was therefore exclusive in favour of the English courts.
3. Anti-enforcement principles. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the question was whether relief was just and convenient. Enforcement of a judgment obtained in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement could in principle be restrained. The order would operate in personam. No distinct jurisdictional requirement of exceptionality applied, although the remedy was rare. Delay and comity remained important, sometimes decisive, considerations.
4. Submission. Google had maintained jurisdictional objections throughout the Russian proceedings. Its participation on the merits was required by Russian procedure to preserve its position and did not amount to an unequivocal submission. Google Ireland, which did not participate in one proceeding, had not submitted.
5. Discretion and outcome. The delay was reasonably explained by the evidence that an earlier anti-suit injunction would have been futile and by the later, unexpected foreign enforcement campaign. The foreign enforcement proceedings were at an early stage, did not concern enforcement in Russia, and the penalties were extraordinary and penal in character. The contractual breaches supplied clear justification for relief. It was just and convenient to grant final anti-enforcement injunctions. The court was minded to grant ancillary anti-anti-suit relief, subject to further submissions on its form.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no prior English appellate decision in the present litigation.