The High Court in London has been hearing several cases relating to the anti-suit injunction against RusChemAlliance LLC (Commerzbank AG v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 587; Deutshe Bank AG v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600). To date, the latest in a series of cases has been heard by the Court of Appeal (UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350).

The proceedings are a typical dispute over the non-performance of a contract due to the imposition of EU sanctions. RusChemAlliance LLC (the claimant) entered into a contract for the construction of gas processing plant facilities in Russia with two German companies, Linde and Renaissance (the contractors) in 2021. The performance of the contract by the contractors was secured by guarantees from Unicredit Bank GmbH (the bank). The contractors refused to fulfil their obligations due to the imposition of EU sanctions in 2022. The claimant made claims against the bank. The bank refused to pay compensation under the guarantees for the same reasons. The contract between the bank and the claimant contained an arbitration clause with the competence of arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The place of arbitration was Paris, France.

The claimant filed a claim against the bank with the Commercial Court of Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Region. The Commercial Court formally accepted the claim with reference to Art 248.1 of the CPC RF. The bank applied to the High Court in London for an anti-suit injunction against the Russian proceedings. A preliminary injunction was granted. The High Court in London refused to grant a final anti-suit injunction. The bank appealed. In the meantime, the bank applied to the Russian court for a stay of the proceedings pending the decision of the Court of Appeal. The claimant did not object. The Commercial Court stayed the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal has decided to grant an anti-suit injunction. The claimant has signalled its intentions to appeal to the Supreme Court. We will not discuss in detail the decision and reasoning of the Court of Appeal. We note only that the Court of Appeal thanked Judge Saltykova for granting the order to stay the proceedings in Russia pending their decision.

The claimant argued that, despite the Court of Appeal’s judgment, it was not obliged to abandon its claim in Russia until a final decision had been made on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal in turn stated that the fate of the Russian proceedings, whether they would be suspended to await the Supreme Court’s decision, was for the Russian court to decide. A hearing to consider the resumption of the proceedings is currently scheduled for 6 May 2024.

This case is already a landmark case for English law, as it addresses the issue of the competence of an English court to ‘protect’ arbitration that is seated in a foreign country, in this case, France. This dispute may be interesting also in terms of how a Russian court will react to an anti-suit injunction issued by an English court. Such an injunction may be ignored, given that the claim was accepted with reference to Article 248.1 of the CPC RF, i.e. the exclusive competence of the Russian court was found. It is also of interest that the bank has assets in Russia. Accordingly, the judgment against the bank may be enforced in Russia without the necessity to recognise and enforce the judgment in the foreign country.

We will follow the development of the proceedings both in England and Russia and hope that it will be possible to prepare a full review of the case in the next issue. ■