ON THE HORIZON 2026 | Protecting the Promise to Arbitrate

Inntroduction
Parties to international contracts commonly agree that disputes will be determined in a particular forum, whether by arbitration or before a chosen court. However, when disputes arise, parties do not always honour that bargain. Instead, they may seek to pursue proceedings elsewhere, often in their home court, in an attempt to obtain a perceived procedural or commercial advantage.

The principal weapon available under English law to address such conduct is the anti-suit injunction. Anti-suit injunctions are orders directed against the relevant party, rather than the foreign court itself, requiring that party not to commence or continue proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement or jurisdiction clause. Their purpose is straightforward: to uphold the parties’ contractual bargain and preserve the integrity of the agreed dispute resolution mechanism.

Recent years have seen a noticeable increase in anti-suit injunction litigation before the English courts in support of arbitration agreements. While many of the reported cases have arisen in the context of sanctions-related proceedings commenced in Russia notwithstanding agreements to arbitrate elsewhere, the remedy is by no means limited to such disputes. Recent authorities demonstrate the English courts’ continuing willingness not only to restrain proceedings brought in breach of arbitration agreements, but also to support arbitral tribunals seeking to protect the arbitration process itself.

The English courts’ approach

The English courts have long recognised the importance of holding parties to their agreement to arbitrate. The power to grant anti-suit injunctions derives from section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which empowers the Court to grant an injunction whenever it is just and convenient to do so. Importantly, anti-suit injunctions are preventative in nature. In Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35, the Supreme Court confirmed that the court’s power under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement may be exercised even where no arbitration is on foot or proposed.

The principles governing applications for anti-suit injunctions are well established. Where an anti-suit injunction is sought to enforce an arbitration agreement, the applicant must demonstrate to a high degree of probability that the arbitration agreement has been incorporated into the relevant contract and that the dispute falls within its scope. This requires more than a good or strongly arguable case – the evidence must enable the court to point with confidence to the contractual promise to arbitrate and its application to the foreign dispute (Transfield Shipping Inc v Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 3629 (QB)). Once that threshold has been met, the court will ordinarily grant relief unless there are strong countervailing reasons not to do so (G2 Ocean AS v Tokio Marine Brasil Seguradora SA [2026] EWHC 997 (Comm)).

UniCredit: protecting arbitration agreements across borders

The English courts’ willingness to protect arbitration agreements is also significant where the agreed seat of arbitration is outside England. The Supreme Court’s decision in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30 provides a clear example.

The dispute arose against the backdrop of sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The claim arose under a series of on-demand bonds issued by UniCredit, each of which was governed by English law and contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Paris under the ICC Rules. RusChemAlliance nevertheless commenced proceedings in Russia notwithstanding the arbitration agreement.

UniCredit sought an anti-suit injunction from the English courts. Although Paris was the seat of the arbitration, the bonds were expressly governed by English law. Applying the principles established in Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court held that the choice of English law governing the bonds also extended to the arbitration agreements contained within them. The Court further concluded that England was the proper forum to grant anti-suit relief.

The significance of the decision lies in the distinction between the English courts’ role in enforcing an arbitration agreement and the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the courts of the seat (here the French courts). The English court was not being asked to supervise the Paris arbitration or determine the underlying dispute. Rather, it was being asked to enforce the parties’ contractual obligation not to pursue proceedings outside the agreed arbitral forum. The fact that Paris was the seat therefore did not prevent the English courts from intervening to restrain proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreement.

UniCredit therefore provides an important illustration of the English courts’ willingness to give practical effect to arbitration agreements even where England is not the seat of the arbitration. The case also demonstrates why anti-suit relief remains an important feature of international arbitration. The effectiveness of an arbitration agreement can depend not only upon the arbitral tribunal’s ability to determine the dispute, but also upon the courts’ willingness to restrain attempts to bypass the arbitral process through parallel litigation.

Recent developments: supporting the arbitral process

The litigation arising from sanctions-related disputes has continued to generate some of the most significant recent decisions. In LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA [2026] EWCA Civ 5, the Court of Appeal considered a dispute arising from contracts for the construction of a fertiliser plant in Russia which provided for ICC arbitration in London. Following the imposition of sanctions, proceedings were commenced in Russia notwithstanding the ongoing London arbitration. The arbitral tribunal responded by issuing anti-suit orders requiring those proceedings to be withdrawn. When those orders were not complied with, the English courts were asked to enforce them.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that peremptory anti-suit orders issued by an arbitral tribunal may be enforced under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (as amended by the AA 2025). In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasised that compliance with an order of a tribunal acting within its powers will ordinarily be regarded as necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings, as contemplated by section 40(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The significance of the decision therefore lies not simply in the granting of anti-suit relief itself, but in the Court’s confirmation that the English courts are prepared to support arbitral tribunals and assist the proper functioning of the arbitral process where parallel proceedings threaten to undermine it.

The same theme can be seen in G2 Ocean AS v Tokio Marine Brasil Seguradora SA [2026] EWHC 997 (Comm). Proceedings were commenced in Brazil by a cargo insurer pursuing subrogated claims arising out of cargo carried under bills of lading. The carrier sought anti-suit relief on the basis that the bills of lading incorporated a London arbitration agreement by reference to the conditions of two booking notes. One of the central issues before the Commercial Court was whether that arbitration agreement had been effectively incorporated into the contractual arrangements and whether it bound a subrogated insurer.

The Commercial Court concluded that it had and granted an anti-suit injunction. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the long-established principle that a party seeking to enforce derived or subrogated contractual rights is generally required to do so subject to the dispute resolution mechanism governing those rights. The decision therefore provides a useful illustration of the applicant’s burden to establish, to a high degree of probability, both the existence of the relevant arbitration agreement and its application to the dispute in question.

Conclusion

The recent authorities leave little doubt that the English courts remain committed to supporting arbitration agreements and arbitral proceedings. Whether by granting anti-suit relief to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement or by supporting relief granted within the arbitral process itself, the courts continue to demonstrate a willingness to prevent parallel proceedings from undermining the parties’ agreed method of dispute resolution.

In an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment, where parallel proceedings across multiple jurisdictions are becoming more common, anti-suit relief is likely to remain an important feature of international dispute resolution. This is therefore an important weapon available to parties who have agreed to arbitrate but find themselves subject to proceedings brought elsewhere in breach of the agreement.

The specialist lawyers at SANDS London have experience advising clients on injunctive relief, jurisdictional challenges and parallel proceedings in both litigation and arbitration. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact a member of the team.