How English courts can protect your arbitration
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance has confirmed that English courts have strong powers to issue anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, even when the arbitration is seated abroad, such as in Paris. The judgment clarified that England can be the right place to seek such protection and reaffirmed the court’s personal authority to stop foreign proceedings that breach an arbitration agreement. Alongside this, Parliament’s 2025 reform simplified matters by making the law of the arbitral seat the default governing law of the arbitration clause unless the parties specify otherwise. This combination of developments is particularly significant for banks, family offices, and investors facing sanctions-related disputes linked to Russian proceedings.
The problem of “forum races”
Cross-border contracts often lead to disputes over where cases should be heard. Some parties try to secure an advantage by bringing claims in their home courts despite agreeing to arbitrate elsewhere. Since 2022, Russian procedural rules have encouraged such local filings and even penalized parties for pursuing foreign arbitration. As a result, non-Russian businesses have sought fast and reliable ways to enforce their right to arbitrate. English courts have emerged as a key forum for this kind of relief.
What the UniCredit case established
In April 2024, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction stopping Russian court proceedings that violated ICC arbitration clauses seated in Paris. The Court later explained that English courts can grant such injunctions based on their general equitable powers under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, not because of any supervisory role over the arbitral seat. England was also found to be the appropriate forum, particularly since French courts do not grant anti-suit injunctions.
The Court determined that English law governed the arbitration agreements because the contracts themselves were under English law and nothing suggested a different law for the arbitration clause. This followed the reasoning in Enka v Chubb, which dealt with how to identify the law of the arbitration clause when the seat and governing law differ.
In deciding whether England was the proper place to hear the claim, the Court rejected a rigid “forum non conveniens” test. Instead, it asked whether the foreign seat made it inappropriate for England to intervene. On the facts, England was suitable, confirming that parties can come to London when they need coercive orders unavailable at the seat.
Why this matters
For high-net-worth individuals and international investors, an English anti-suit order can prevent counterparties from undermining arbitration by suing elsewhere. It helps maintain the arbitration’s effectiveness and limits the risk of conflicting judgments or enforcement against assets in England or other jurisdictions that recognize such orders. The publicity around UniCredit highlighted how high the financial and reputational stakes can be.
Trends after UniCredit
Earlier cases like Deutsche Bank v RusChemAlliance and Commerzbank v RusChemAlliance had already set the stage, confirming that English courts can issue anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions to protect Paris-seated arbitrations. Together, these cases made London a reliable venue for safeguarding arbitrations threatened by Russian litigation.
By 2025, however, some banks began seeking to amend or cancel injunctions after Russian courts imposed penalties for maintaining them. This did not weaken the legal foundation for such relief but served as a practical reminder to weigh sanctions and enforcement risks carefully. Meanwhile, Russian courts have issued their own judgments and asset freezes in parallel, underscoring the need for coordinated, multi-jurisdictional strategies to handle overlapping court orders.
How English anti-suit protection operates
When a party sues abroad in violation of an arbitration clause, English courts generally intervene to stop it unless strong reasons exist not to. This principle dates back to the Angelic Grace case. The Supreme Court’s ruling in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk also confirmed that injunctions can be granted even if arbitration hasn’t yet started.
The court’s power to issue these orders is personal—it acts against the party, not the foreign court. Applications are made under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) Part 62, which allows service outside England in arbitration-related matters. If the arbitration is seated in England, the process is simple; if it’s seated abroad, permission is still available if England is the appropriate forum.
English courts can also issue anti-enforcement injunctions to stop parties from using or enforcing foreign judgments obtained in breach of arbitration. The Deutsche Bank case showed how crucial this can be when foreign courts ignore arbitration clauses.
The 2025 legislative update
A new section 6A of the Arbitration Act now provides that, by default, the law of the arbitral seat governs the arbitration agreement unless stated otherwise. This removes uncertainty and the need for the kind of detailed analysis seen in UniCredit. To preserve flexibility, parties should still draft clearly if they want English law to apply to an arbitration seated elsewhere.
Practical boundaries
English injunctions are effective against parties with connections or assets in England, or those exposed to contempt of court. They cannot compel a foreign court to stop its proceedings. Even so, they carry significant weight by blocking enforcement in England and influencing courts in other common law jurisdictions.
Guidance for claimants
Speed matters. A prompt application shows good faith in enforcing the arbitration agreement. Parties should file in the Commercial Court, providing evidence of the arbitration clause and the foreign suit, and seek interim orders quickly.
It is often wise to request both anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions together, relying on Deutsche Bankas precedent. Claimants must handle service properly under CPR Part 62 and explain why England is the right venue, particularly if the arbitral seat cannot provide similar relief.
Coordination with the arbitral tribunal is also important, as consistent procedural records strengthen the overall position.
For Russia-linked disputes, claimants should anticipate countermeasures under Russian law and weigh the risks of fines or sanctions. Orders can be structured with flexibility to allow review or modification if risks escalate.
Drafting future contracts requires care: if English law should govern a foreign-seated arbitration, this must be explicitly stated.
Sanctions-related clauses should confirm that the arbitration remains valid despite restrictions, and it can help to include an express right to seek English court protection.
Advice for defendants
Defendants opposing an injunction must show strong reasons, such as that the arbitration clause is invalid or that the seat’s court can offer adequate remedies. They may also argue that England is not the proper forum, though this is harder after UniCredit. If compliance becomes impossible due to foreign coercion or penalties, they can ask the court to vary or lift the injunction, provided they present credible evidence.
Cross-border implications
UniCredit demonstrated that English courts can protect arbitrations seated in EU jurisdictions like France. This reasoning applies wherever local courts cannot issue anti-suit injunctions, positioning London as a complementary forum rather than a competitor to the seat. However, conflicting court orders are likely, so parties should manage them as part of a wider enforcement plan and maintain credibility by respecting their own injunctions.
For financial institutions, these disputes are not only legal but reputational. Decisions about whether to pursue or maintain injunctions may affect compliance and public perception as much as legal outcomes.
Conclusion
English courts remain a trusted forum for urgent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions that protect foreign-seated arbitrations. The Supreme Court has confirmed when England can grant such relief and reinforced the court’s equitable authority under section 37 of the Senior Court Act 1981. Since the Arbitration Act 2025 came into force, the law of the seat now governs the arbitration clause unless otherwise stated, making clear drafting essential.
For parties in Russia-related disputes, careful planning is crucial given the risk of penalties and countermeasures. Act promptly, combine anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief, and coordinate strategy across all jurisdictions to preserve both legal and commercial stability.
