Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC

An English court may grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions to uphold arbitration agreements where the claimant shows a high probability that foreign proceedings breach those agreements. The respondent must then show a strong reason against relief, and the court must consider whether relief is just and convenient. Fragmentation of related claims is not generally a strong reason where it results from the parties’ contractual arbitration arrangements. Delay is assessed in context, including the progress of the foreign proceedings and whether the delay was justified. Filing a merits defence after a timely jurisdiction objection does not amount to voluntary submission where foreign law requires that course. Anti-enforcement relief does not require an additional test of exceptionality. Alternative service may be ordered where expedition is necessary to make coercive relief effective.

Maxam sought continuation and variation of interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions granted without notice by Andrew Baker J on 2 March 2026. The injunctions restrained Eurotel from pursuing proceedings in the Voronezh Arbitrazh Court in Russia in breach of arbitration agreements contained in or incorporated into seven supply agreements, and from enforcing any resulting judgment.

Despite service of the order, Eurotel continued the Russian proceedings and obtained judgment on 4 March 2026. Eurotel did not attend the return-date hearing, although the court was satisfied that it had proper notice. Maxam sought final relief, specific protection against the Russian judgment, an order requiring Eurotel to take steps to set it aside, and permission to serve further documents on Eurotel’s new Russian representatives. The central issues were jurisdiction, breach, strong reasons against relief, delay, voluntary submission, anti-enforcement relief and alternative service.

1. Jurisdiction and service out. The court held that the arbitration claim concerned a remedy affecting arbitration agreements within CPR 62.5. The requirements for service out were satisfied for the English-law arbitration agreements relating to Supply Agreements 5–7, and the connected-claims gateway supported relief concerning Supply Agreements 1–4. England was the proper place to bring the claim. The fact that the Russian proceedings combined claims arising under several agreements was not a good reason to refuse relief.
2. Breach. Applying the principles summarised in RiverRock Securities Ltd v International Bank of St Petersburg (JSC) [2022] LR 591, Maxam had to show a high probability of success that the Russian proceedings breached binding arbitration agreements. The court was satisfied that the arbitration clauses in Supply Agreements 6 and 7 were incorporated from English-law standard terms under section 6(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Russian claims fell within the arbitration agreements, and an arbitration agreement included a negative promise not to seek relief in another forum. Maxam also had at least arguable defences to the assigned claims.
3. Strong reasons and discretion. No strong reason justified refusing relief. Potential fragmentation and inconsistent decisions were an inevitable consequence of the parties’ contractual arrangements. Eurotel could not obtain an advantage by ignoring the interim injunction and securing judgment in the enjoined proceedings. Delay was substantially justified by Maxam’s parallel challenges to the assignments, its prompt jurisdiction objection and the stay previously obtained in Russia. Maxam had not voluntarily submitted to the Russian jurisdiction: its merits defence was filed after a timely jurisdiction challenge and was required by Russian procedural law.
4. Anti-enforcement relief. Following SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599, an anti-enforcement injunction did not require a distinct jurisdictional test of exceptionality. The risk that the Russian court would refuse withdrawal and enforce its judgment outside Russia justified the relief.
5. Orders. The interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief was continued and varied to address the 4 March 2026 Russian judgment. Eurotel was required to take necessary steps within its power to set that judgment aside. Alternative service on Eurotel’s new representatives was permitted.

• High Court (Commercial Court): interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions were granted without notice by Andrew Baker J on 2 March 2026. On the return date, Bryan J continued and varied the relief.