Maire S.p.A. v LLC EuroChem North-West-2

An anti-suit injunction on vexation or oppression grounds is available when the ends of justice require it, subject to careful consideration of comity and the English court’s sufficient interest. The categories in which relief may be granted are not closed. A sufficient interest may arise where foreign proceedings seek an illegitimate juridical advantage by bypassing the contractual effects of sanctions or by enforcing a judgment obtained in breach of arbitration agreements and English court orders. For service-out gateways, a claim to restrain foreign proceedings seeking payment under a contract may be a claim in respect of that contract; the connection is not confined to a claim for breach.

Maire S.p.A. sought a final anti-suit injunction restraining LLC EuroChem North-West-2 from pursuing Russian proceedings against it under parent company guarantees. The Russian claims relied on a Russian judgment against the contractors which had been obtained while related disputes were subject to a London-seated arbitration and in breach of tribunal and English court orders.

An interim injunction had been made, but the Defendant did not acknowledge service, file evidence or appear at trial. The court proceeded after finding that the Defendant knew of the proceedings and had a full opportunity to participate. The issues included the court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim and whether the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, having regard to comity.

1. The trial properly proceeded in the Defendant’s absence. The Defendant had notice and a full opportunity to participate or seek an adjournment, and the Claimant’s counsel fairly presented the arguments the Defendant might have made.

2. The court had jurisdiction under both contractual routes considered. For CPR 6.33(2B)(b) and (c), the Guarantee provisions allowing claims to be heard in England and identifying the English courts as the appropriate forum amounted to an express or implied agreement that the English court had jurisdiction, although the Defendant was not obliged to sue there and its jurisdiction was non-exclusive as against the Defendant. The claim also fell within Practice Direction 6B, paragraph 3.1(6)(c): in ordinary language, an application to restrain proceedings seeking payments under the Guarantees was made in respect of those contracts. The phrase is not confined to claims for breach. The court distinguished Navig8 Pte Ltd v Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry (The Lucky Lady) and FH Holding (Moscow) v AO Unicredit Bank, and explained the qualified observations in Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corp. It relied on the broader construction in Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motors Trading Sdn Bhd.

3. The governing principles, drawn from SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd, were that relief is granted when the ends of justice require it; the recognised categories include protecting the English court’s jurisdiction and restraining vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings, but are not closed; and the jurisdiction must be applied flexibly and with great caution because of comity. Comity requires a sufficient English interest. On a forum non conveniens basis, Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP indicates that England must be clearly the natural forum and justice must require restraint.

4. The Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. They sought recovery under the Guarantees on the basis of a Russian judgment obtained in breach of arbitration agreements and multiple tribunal and English court orders, pre-empting the London arbitration. The evidence showed that the Russian courts would not give proper effect to English law and UK and EU sanctions, creating an illegitimate juridical advantage. The court also relied on the need to protect the integrity of English court orders and the sanctions regime, following the approach in Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises. Although it considered comity, the proceedings were not significantly advanced, and the circumstances justified intervention.

5. The court also considered possible objections that the Defendant could not withdraw the Russian proceedings without exposing its directors to criminal liability, or might be unable to recommence them after withdrawal. Those points had not been advanced by the absent Defendant. The court saw no reason the first objection would be stronger than the similar argument rejected in Tecnimont v LLC Eurochem North-West-2. As to the second, it adopted the reasoning in Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and the comparison there with UniCredit Bank v RusChemAlliance: inability to pursue a claim again in Russia did not outweigh the absence of a legitimate basis to sue there or justify refusing relief.

6. Judgment was entered for the Claimant. The final injunction and ancillary orders were made.

This was a first-instance trial. The judgment describes the following steps in these proceedings:

1. High Court (Commercial Court): an interim anti-suit order was made on 23 April 2026 by Knowles J.
2. High Court (Commercial Court): at the return date on 8 May 2026, Dias J gave permission to seek summary judgment or an expedited trial. An expedited trial was then directed and took place on 19 June 2026.
3. High Court (Commercial Court): Henshaw J granted final relief.