Latest News
UK Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Suit Injunction in Foreign-Seated Arbitration: UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance
UK Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Suit Injunction in Foreign-Seated Arbitration: UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance
Introduction:
The recent decision by the UK Supreme Court in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance has affirmed the power of English courts to grant anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in cases involving foreign-seated arbitrations governed by English law. This ruling follows an appeal by RusChemAlliance LLC (RCA) against the Court of Appeal's decision to issue an ASI against proceedings initiated by RCA in Russia, despite the arbitration's seat being in Paris.
The CoA's Decision and Background:
The Court of Appeal overturned the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an ASI against RCA, which had initiated proceedings in Russia in breach of arbitration agreements. These agreements stipulated that disputes were to be resolved through ICC arbitration in Paris, with English law governing the obligations arising from the contracts. The CoA held that England was the appropriate forum to consider the ASI request, disagreeing with the Commercial Court's view that an ASI should not be granted when it is not a remedy available under the law of the seat.
Supreme Court's Ruling:
The UK Supreme Court upheld the ASI against RCA, affirming the jurisdiction of English courts to grant such injunctions when English law governs the arbitration agreement, irrespective of the seat of arbitration. This decision reinforces the importance of the chosen governing law in determining the jurisdiction of English courts over ASIs.
Key Takeaways:
The Supreme Court's decision provides clarity on the ability of English courts to grant ASIs in cases involving foreign-seated arbitrations governed by English law. It emphasizes the significance of the chosen governing law in determining the jurisdiction of English courts over ASIs.
Implications of the Decision:
The ruling has significant implications for parties involved in international disputes with arbitration agreements governed by English law. It underscores the importance of carefully selecting the governing law and seat of arbitration to ensure the enforceability of ASIs.
Potential Impact of Future Legislation:
The decision may be subject to potential changes in legislation, such as the proposed Arbitration Bill, which could alter the framework for granting ASIs in cases involving foreign-seated arbitrations. The bill, if passed, would default arbitration agreements to the law of the seat, potentially limiting the jurisdiction of English courts in granting ASIs.
Conclusion:
The UK Supreme Court's decision in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance reaffirms the jurisdiction of English courts to grant ASIs in cases involving foreign-seated arbitrations governed by English law. While providing clarity on the current legal landscape, the decision also highlights the potential impact of future legislative changes on the enforceability of ASIs in the UK.
- These agreements stipulated that disputes were to be resolved through ICC arbitration in Paris, with English law governing the obligations arising from the contracts.
- This decision reinforces the importance of the chosen governing law in determining the jurisdiction of English courts over ASIs.
- The decision may be subject to potential changes in legislation, such as the proposed Arbitration Bill.
