The claimants brought a claim in the High Court against the defendants, alleging that they had conspired to injure them by unlawful means. One of the defendants applied for anti-suit injunctions from a Russian court against the claimants and then issued a jurisdictional challenge under CPR Pt 11 in the High Court proceedings. The Russian court refused the defendant’s application to adjourn the proceedings before it, and granted final anti-suit injunctions, entitling the defendant to recover US$7.5bn from the claimants in the event that they did not comply with the order. After the defendant had filed its proceedings in Russia, but before any relief had been granted, the claimants obtained without notice an anti-anti-suit injunction against the defendant, which they later applied to continue until the hearing of the defendant’s challenge to the High Court’s jurisdiction. The claimants proceeded with the application notwithstanding the final relief granted by the Russian court on the basis that it could not obtain an order to prevent the defendant from enforcing the Russian orders unless they could first show that, in principle, they were entitled to an anti-anti-suit injunction. On the application, the question arose whether the general rule that an applicant for a non-contractual anti-suit injunction had to establish that England was the natural forum, applied in the context of an anti-anti-suit injunction where the court was not yet able to decide whether England was the more appropriate forum.
On the application to continue the anti-anti-suit injunction—
Held, application granted. The English court had the power to grant an interim anti-anti-suit injunction to last until it was able to decide on its own jurisdiction. The grant of such an injunction might be appropriate where the foreign anti-suit injunction was intended to stymie the proper determination of the jurisdictional challenge in England. In the present case, the defendant had deliberately arranged matters so that the claimants had to elect between not resisting the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge or resisting the challenge and being potentially exposed to the liability of US$7.5bn, behaviour which could properly be characterised as unconscionable. Also, the relief sought by the claimant, not being permanent, was calibrated so as to minimise the offence to the Russian court and any collateral damage to comity. Accordingly, it was right to continue the anti-anti-suit injunction until the determination of the jurisdictional challenge or until earlier order (paras 85–86, 90–93, 117–118).
Stephen Houseman KC and Stephen Donnelly (instructed by Seladore Legal) for the claimants.
Graham Dunning KC, Tom Ford and Oliver Goldstein (instructed by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP) for the defendant.