Trafigura PTE Limited v Société Nationale de Raffinage

An anti-suit injunction may restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause where the claimant shows to a high degree of probability that the proceedings fall within the clause. An exception for arrest, attachment or other conservatory, interlocutory or interim action is construed in context and, applying ejusdem generis, ordinarily covers protective or security measures ancillary to substantive proceedings in the agreed forum. It does not extend to proceedings which suspend payment under an irrevocable letter of credit and thereby reverse the agreed pay-now-argue-later allocation of risk. Relief is ordinarily granted unless strong reasons are shown. Payment under the credit and an intention to discontinue did not remove the need for final mandatory relief while the foreign proceedings remained on foot.

Trafigura applied under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for interim and final mandatory anti-suit relief against SONARA’s proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Limbe, Cameroon. SONARA had sought to suspend payment under an English-law letter of credit after rejecting a gasoline cargo under an English-law sale contract. Both instruments contained exclusive English jurisdiction clauses; clause 23G of the sale contract preserved certain interim measures in other courts.

Mr Justice Knowles had granted an interim order on 1 April 2026. Payment was later made under the letter of credit, but the Limbe Proceedings remained pending and SONARA had not completed discontinuance. The central issue was whether the foreign proceedings fell within clause 23G’s exception and, if not, whether final mandatory relief remained necessary.

Disposition

The interim anti-suit injunction was replaced by a final mandatory injunction requiring SONARA to withdraw the Limbe Proceedings. The order was to be framed narrowly enough to preserve clause 23G’s exception for interim security relief in another jurisdiction. Costs were left for agreement or determination on paper.

1. Applicable principles. Under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court may restrain foreign proceedings where it is just and convenient to do so. The principles stated in Times Trading Corp v National Bank of Fujairah [2020] Bus LR 1752 apply to exclusive jurisdiction clauses, as confirmed by Catlin Syndicate Limited v AMEC Foster Wheeler USA Corporation [2020] EWHC 2530 (Comm). The claimant must show to a high degree of probability that the proceedings breach a binding negative right. The jurisdiction is exercised with caution, and relief is ordinarily granted unless the defendant shows strong reasons for refusing it.
2. Construction of clause 23G. The exception for arrest, attachment and other conservatory, interlocutory or interim actions had to be construed in context. Applying ejusdem generis, it was confined to protective or security measures ancillary to substantive proceedings in the agreed forum. Aquavita International SA v Indagro [2023] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 61 and RSM Production Corporation v Gaz du Cameroun SA [2023] EWHC 2820 (Comm) supported that approach. SRS Middle East FZE v Chemie Tech DMCC [2020] EWHC 2904 (Comm) was an outlier on materially different facts.
3. Application. The Limbe Proceedings were not merely protective. Their substance was an application to suspend payment under the letter of credit because the gasoline was alleged to be defective. If the proposed testing did not resolve the dispute, the suspension could have continued until the quality dispute was determined. That would have transferred the payment risk back to Trafigura and undermined the agreed pay-now-argue-later mechanism. The proceedings therefore sought, at least in part, to bypass clause 23G and were outside its exception. Trafigura had shown to the requisite high probability that they breached the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
4. Alternative grounds. The court accepted that the quasi-contractual analysis in Times Trading Corp v National Bank of Fujairah [2020] Bus LR 1752 could provide further justification where a person sought the benefit of a contract without accepting its jurisdictional burden. However, if clause 23G had permitted the Limbe Proceedings, a standalone quasi-contractual or vexatious-and-oppressive basis would not have justified relief. Payment under the letter of credit and an intention to discontinue did not make relief unnecessary while the proceedings remained on foot.

First-instance decision; no appellate history is stated in the judgment.