LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SPA & Anor

Section 41(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits a tribunal to make a peremptory order following non-compliance with any order or direction within its powers. Section 41(1) does not confine that power to matters independently necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration.

Under section 40(2)(a), compliance with a tribunal order made within its powers is itself necessary for that purpose. The court may therefore enforce, under section 42, a peremptory order requiring anti-suit relief. Anti-anti-arbitration relief is plainly capable of protecting the conduct of the reference. Parallel-proceedings relief may also do so, depending on its practical effect. The observations in AES concerning section 44 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 concern a different, negative contractual obligation and do not restrict section 42.

The Contractors commenced a London-seated ICC arbitration against NW2 concerning contracts for the construction of a plant in Russia. After NW2 and its parent pursued Russian proceedings seeking the same substantive relief, and anti-arbitration injunctions restraining the London arbitration, the Tribunal made non-peremptory and then peremptory anti-suit orders.

Butcher J in the Commercial Court enforced those orders under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996. NW2 appealed on the sole ground that section 42 could not enforce a peremptory order granting anti-suit relief. The central issue was whether such relief could fall within the statutory scheme for peremptory orders and their enforcement.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Popplewell LJ gave the reasons, with which Phillips and May LJJ agreed.

1. Section 41(5). The words “any order or directions” are unrestricted. Section 41(1) is permissive and clarificatory of party autonomy; it does not qualify section 41(5), whether directly or through section 41(2). Thus, at least where the tribunal had power to make the original order, a peremptory order may be made for its non-compliance. The court did not need to decide the consequence of an original order made outside the tribunal’s powers.
2. Sections 40 and 42. Section 40(2)(a) treats compliance with any order or direction of a tribunal acting within its powers as necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration. It would contradict the statutory scheme and party autonomy if a party could disregard a valid tribunal order. Section 42 consequently enables the court to enforce the positive obligation to comply with the peremptory order.
3. Anti-suit relief. Anti-anti-arbitration relief is necessarily directed to preventing or remedying a step intended to halt or impede the arbitration. Parallel-proceedings relief can likewise be necessary where the foreign proceedings divert resources, impede the reference, or threaten enforcement of an award. It was unchallenged that the relief in this case was necessary on its facts.
4. AES. The ratio in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35 established that section 44 did not affect the separate section 37 jurisdiction. Its further observations about anti-suit injunctions enforcing the negative promise in an arbitration agreement were obiter and concerned a different obligation. They neither governed nor undermined enforcement under section 42 of a tribunal order made under the reference.

It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether equivalent relief could also have been granted under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Civ 5.
• High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Commercial Court (KBD). Butcher J granted an injunction under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 enforcing the Tribunal’s peremptory anti-suit orders on 21 November 2025. No citation was stated in the judgment.