- within Wealth Management, Employment and HR and Technology topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The decision underscores the court's reluctance to grant such relief where disputes have a strong connection to a foreign forum - here the security was governed by Russian law and an exclusive Russian jurisdiction clause
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a borrower's application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) preventing proceedings commenced in Moscow by a bank's Russian subsidiary to enforce security: FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank & UniCredit S.p.A [2026] EWCA Civ 468.
The dispute centered on overlapping dispute resolution clauses: the facility agreement was governed by English law and provided for Vienna-seated arbitration, but the security was provided by a Russian-law governed mortgage over Moscow real estate with disputes subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian court.
The decision will be of interest to financial institutions as it highlights the English court's reluctance to intervene where the contractual framework and the substance of the dispute point strongly towards a foreign forum. From a practical perspective, the case also serves as a reminder that: (i) in financing transactions, disputes may fall under multiple different dispute resolution provisions; and (ii) to reduce the risk of jurisdictional battles, finance parties should make very clear whether or not establishing an event of default under a facility agreement is a condition precedent to enforcement of any security.
In the present case, the security was provided as part of a financing transaction (between the bank, its subsidiary and the borrower) where the facility agreement was governed by English law and provided for Vienna-seated arbitration. The subsidiary subsequently commenced foreclosure proceedings in the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region under the security (the Russian Proceedings) alleging that an event of default had occurred under the facility agreement. The borrower argued in the Russian proceedings that no event of default had occurred and also challenged the court's jurisdiction, contending that disputes regarding events of default were subject to the arbitration clause in the facility agreement, rather than the jurisdiction clause in the security. In parallel, the borrower sought an ASI from the English High Court under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain the subsidiary from pursuing the Russian Proceedings. The borrower was granted permission to serve the ASI application out of the jurisdiction. The subsidiary contested the jurisdiction of the English court to grant the ASI, while the bank applied for summary judgment to have the borrower's claim against it dismissed.
The High Court declined to issue the ASI, awarded summary judgment in favour of the bank, and upheld the subsidiary's jurisdictional objection. The borrower appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Applying English law principles of contractual interpretation, the Court of Appeal found that bringing proceedings in Moscow was not in breach of the arbitration agreement in the facility agreement.
For more information, please see this post on our Arbitration Notes blog.
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.
[View Source]
