This was an application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) by Deutsche Bank AG (the applicant) against RusChemAlliance LLC (the defendant). The defendant entered into an agreement with the German company (the contractor) for the engineering, procurement and construction of the LNG plant in Ust-Luga. The applicant guaranteed the contractor’s obligation. The guarantee contained the arbitration clause for the ICC in Paris.

Due to the sanctions, the contractor suspended work. The defendant claimed against the applicant under the guarantee. The applicant refused to execute the guarantee due to the restrictions. The defendant submitted the claim to the Russian court. The applicant started the arbitration proceedings and applied to the English court to file an ASI against the Russian court in favour of the arbitration proceedings in France.

Bright J in the High Court declined the application. He concluded that it was not the English court’s job to support the arbitration in France. Moreover, this support may not be welcomed, and the ASI will not be enforceable. Bright J granted the permission to appeal the judgment of the High Court.

The Court of Appeal revised the judgment and granted the ASI. Nugee LJ rendered the judgment.

Nugee LJ stated that the arbitration clause consists of two main parts. The first is a positive part, which is the parties’ obligation to submit their claims to the agreed arbitration. The second is a negative part, which is not submitting the claims to forums other than the agreed arbitration. As long as English law applies to the arbitration clause, the English court may issue an ASI since it enforces the contractual terms upon the parties, even though the place of arbitration is not in England. French law does not provide the tools for the courts to grant interim measures. However, contrary to Bright J’s position, Nugee LJ found no philosophical or principle obstacles to enforcing an ASI granted by an English court in France. The lack of instruments for the ASI to be granted in France makes the choice of forum not between England and France but between England and not submitting the claim at all. So, there is no conflict of forums in the first place. Based on this, the ASI was granted.

This case is one of the series of cases involving RusChemAlliance, which relate to its disputes with the parties’ suspended works due to the sanctions. The Russian company has the instruments to enforce its claims in Russia and avoid arbitration clauses. If the debtor has property in Russia, these ASIs are ineffective. The case discussed is interesting due to two reasons. First, it deals with the issue of granting an ASI in favour of arbitration in a foreign country. Second, it shows how English courts deal with the Russian companies’ attempts to avoid arbitration clauses and bring their claims to Russian courts. Briefly, they will not turn a blind eye to these activities. ■