English Court Continues Anti-Suit And Anti-Enforcement Injunctions In Support Of Arbitration Agreement Despite Russian Judgment Obtained In Breach

The English Commercial Court has confirmed that a party cannot evade anti-suit or anti-enforcement relief by ignoring an injunction and procuring a foreign judgment during the period of restraint.

The English Commercial Court has confirmed that a party cannot evade anti-suit (ASI) or anti-enforcement (AEI) relief by ignoring an injunction and procuring a foreign judgment during the period of restraint. In Maxamcorp International SL v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm), the Court continued interim ASI and AEI relief restraining Russian proceedings brought in breach of multiple arbitration agreements, notwithstanding that judgment had already been obtained in Russia. 

The decision provides further reassurance of the English courts’ robust approach to protecting arbitration agreements, particularly in disputes involving Russian court proceedings, and confirms that the practical utility of such relief may lie primarily in resisting enforcement outside the foreign forum.

Background

The dispute arose out of seven supply agreements entered into between 2020 and 2022 involving Maxamcorp International SL (Maxam), its Russian subsidiaries, and members of the EuroChem group. Three of the agreements – accounting for approximately 75% of the value of the claims later pursued – included or incorporated arbitration agreements for LCIA arbitration, seated in London and governed by English law (Supply Agreements 5-7). The remaining agreements provided for ICC arbitration with no agreed seat, or for HKIAC arbitration seated in Hong Kong (Supply Agreements 1-4).

In early 2024, following what Maxam characterised as a corporate raid, Maxam lost control of one of its Russian subsidiaries. As part of a broader series of assignments, two purported assignments were executed pursuant to which claims allegedly arising under certain of the supply agreements were eventually assigned to Eurotel LLC (Eurotel), a Russian company. Maxam disputed the validity of those assignments. In August 2024, a further purported assignment was executed, which Maxam likewise disputed.

In October 2024, Eurotel commenced proceedings against Maxam in the Voronezh Arbitrazh Court (the Russian Proceedings), seeking to recover the debts purportedly assigned to it and at the same time seeking interim measures. Maxam challenged the Russian court’s jurisdiction by reference to the arbitration agreements contained in the supply agreements. That challenge was dismissed in August 2025. Maxam proceeded to file a Statement of Defence in the Russian Proceedings in December 2025.

Continued ASI and AEI relief

On 2 March 2026, Maxam obtained, without notice, an interim anti‑suit injunction and anti‑enforcement injunction from the English court. Notwithstanding that those orders were duly served, Eurotel proceeded with a scheduled hearing in the Russian Proceedings and, on 4 March 2026, obtained judgment in full against Maxam during the period of restraint (the 4 March Judgment). Maxam accordingly sought to continue (with some variations) the relief granted on 2 March 2026 until the final hearing of the parallel arbitration claim. Notably, as Bryan J observed, the relief sought by Maxam was advanced on a quasi-contractual basis: Eurotel could not selectively rely on the supply agreements while disregarding the arbitration agreements contained therein. If Eurotel wished to recover debts allegedly owed to it under those agreements, it must accept that its rights were "conditioned" by the corresponding arbitration agreements.

At the return‑date hearing, Eurotel did not appear. Bryan J was nevertheless satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed. Maxam sought continuation of the ASI and AEI with specific reference to the 4 March Judgment, together with an additional requirement that Eurotel take all necessary steps to have the 4 March Judgment set aside.

Decision

Jurisdiction

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to grant ASI and AEI relief in respect of all seven supply agreements. 

For Supply Agreements 5-7, the jurisdictional requirements of CPR 62.5 were satisfied pursuant to section 6A(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, which designates that their arbitration agreements are governed by English law.

For Supply Agreements 1-4, the Court applied the principle confirmed by the Supreme Court in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChem Alliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30 [2025] AC 1177. Where the English court has personal jurisdiction over the party, it will in principle restrain breaches of arbitration agreements even where the seat is foreign or has not yet been fixed, unless the opinion of the court is that the seat of the arbitration is or is likely to be outside England and Wales and it would be inappropriate on the facts of the case to do so. Jurisdiction in respect of those agreements was properly founded on the "closely connected facts" gateway in CPR PD 6B paragraph 3.1(4A), reflecting the contract being English law governed and having a common factual matrix concerning the disputed assignments and the Russian Proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreements. The Court rejected the suggestion that the exercise of jurisdiction infringed principles of comity with the courts of any foreign seat.

Breach of the arbitration agreements

The Court was satisfied, to the high‑probability standard, that the Russian Proceedings were brought in breach of the arbitration agreements.

In respect of Supply Agreements 5-7, the Court found a high probability that the LCIA arbitration agreements applied, including by way of incorporation from EuroChem’s general terms and conditions, general words of incorporation being sufficient for that purpose. An arbitration agreement carries with it a negative obligation not to pursue claims in another forum. That obligation had been breached by Eurotel, the Russian Proceedings having been brought in respect of claims arising "out of or in connection with" the supply agreements.

The Court reached the same conclusion in relation to Supply Agreements 1-4, notwithstanding the absence of expert evidence on the foreign governing law of those arbitration agreements.

Were there any strong reasons to refuse the relief?

The Court briefly considered the risk of fragmenting what is now a single claim in the Russian Proceedings into separate claims under their respective arbitration agreements, but held that where a high probability of breach is established, any such fragmentation simply reflects the parties’ contractual choices and does not amount to a strong reason, and certainly not, without more, a bar for refusing relief.

Further, the Court held that the approximately 16‑month delay between commencement of the Russian Proceedings and the application for ASI relief did not weigh against continuation of the injunctions. The delay was explained by Maxam’s pursuit of assignment‑challenge proceedings in Russia, which were the only available means under Russian law of seeking to prevent the proceedings at source. Maxam had also promptly challenged the Russian court’s jurisdiction and had not submitted to it. The period during which the Russian Proceedings were stayed was not to be counted against Maxam.

The Court also took into account expert evidence that foreign ASIs would not be recognised by Russian courts, thereby reducing the significance of delay from a comity perspective. Maxam had not adopted a "wait and see" approach but had actively sought to prevent continuation of the Russian Proceedings throughout, only seeking ASI and AEI relief once its jurisdictional challenge had failed.

Although Maxam had filed a defence on the merits in Russia, this did not amount to voluntary submission. Under Russian law, submission to jurisdiction arises from a failure to challenge jurisdiction in time, not from filing a defence on the merits. In any event, filing a defence was a procedural prerequisite to appealing the unfavourable jurisdiction decision already rendered. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court noted that while voluntary submission to jurisdiction "may be an important and sometimes decisive factor" weighing against the grant of relief, it would not necessarily be fatal.

The Court emphasised that a party cannot procure the lifting of an injunction simply by ignoring it and obtaining judgment; to permit that would allow a party to retain an advantage gained in breach of both the arbitration agreement and the court’s order.

Factors specific to the AEI sought

Following SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599, the Court confirmed that no separate requirement of exceptionality applies to anti‑enforcement relief. AEIs are granted infrequently because the relevant conditions are rarely met, not because a higher threshold applies. As noted in JPMorgan Securities plc v VTB Bank PJSC [2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm), AEI relief has become increasingly common in cases involving Russia, given the risk that Russian courts will decline to permit the discontinuance of proceedings notwithstanding the grant of ASIs.

The Court considered AEI relief particularly appropriate where Eurotel had obtained judgment in breach of the interim injunction, and where there was a real risk of enforcement outside Russia given Maxam's extensive global presence. 

Comment

This decision reinforces a number of increasingly present themes in the English courts’ recent arbitration jurisprudence:

• The Court reaffirmed that assignees asserting contractual rights take those rights subject to the arbitration agreement, regardless of disputes as to the validity of the assignment.
• Interim relief can be obtained where the English courts have personal jurisdiction over a party (e.g., where one of the gateways in CPR PD 6B paragraph 3.1 is met), even where the seat is foreign or has not yet been fixed so long as it would not be inappropriate on the facts of the case to do so.
• Delay will not necessarily preclude relief where it is explained by active steps taken to challenge foreign proceedings at source and prompt jurisdictional objections. 
• AEI relief may be granted where there is a real risk that proceedings in Russian courts will continue to judgment notwithstanding an ASI, including where judgment has already been obtained in breach of interim relief. 

The judgment confirms the English courts’ continued willingness to protect arbitration agreements against parallel proceedings brought in foreign courts, including Russian courts, and underscores that injunctive relief cannot be neutralised by deliberate non‑compliance. It also confirms that mere participation in foreign proceedings will not necessarily be fatal to seeking ASI relief where, subject to a close analysis of the impact of such participation as in the present case, it can be shown that there has been no voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of that foreign court.

The authors would like to thank Serena Collins for her contribution to this post.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.