High Court grants banks' request to revoke final anti-suit injunctions in their favour but refuses to revoke declarations on jurisdiction

The High Court has revoked anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) made in favour of the claimants, but kept in place declarations regarding the court's jurisdiction: Bayerische Landesbank and others v RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWHC 924 (Comm).

The ASIs had prohibited the defendant from bringing or continuing proceedings in Russia in breach of agreements in favour of Paris-seated arbitration. Rather than complying, the defendant obtained its own ASIs from the Russian court, which required the claimants to take all measures within their control to cancel the English ASIs or face a significant penalty. The claimants therefore applied to revoke the relevant English court orders.

The court followed recent guidance from the Court of Appeal in Unicredit Bank v RusChemAlliance [2025] EWCA Civ 99, reported in our earlier blog post here, which gave rise to similar issues against a similar background. On this basis, it revoked the final injunctive relief. However, it refused to revoke declarations on the court's jurisdiction, which recorded the position as determined by the court under English law and could therefore not be revoked "any more than a bell can be unrung".

The court took a different approach to declarations regarding breach of the arbitration agreement, which the court said were forward-looking and concerned the parties rather than the courts. These could be revoked because circumstances had changed materially since they were made. The court also discharged costs orders arising from the original ASI applications.

Background

The three claimant banks are parties to various performance bonds governed by English law and providing for arbitration in Paris. In each case, RusChemAlliance (RCA) is the counterparty.

When a dispute arose between the claimants and RCA, the claimants sought to protect their right to arbitrate by successfully applying to the English court for ASIs against RCA to restrain court proceedings in Russia.

In addition to granting final injunctive relief, the ASIs also contained the following:

• In the case of all three claimant banks, (a) a declaration that the English court had jurisdiction to determine its claim for final anti-suit relief and (b) an order that RCA pay the claimants' costs.
• In the case of two of the banks only, (c) a declaration that the arbitration agreements were governed by English law and (d) a declaration that commencement and pursuit of the Russian proceedings constituted a breach of the arbitration agreements as a matter of English law. 

After these orders were made, the Russian courts granted ASIs in favour of RCA. These included orders that the banks take all measures within their control to revoke the English court's orders, or face significant financial penalties.

The three claimant banks applied to revoke or vary the ASIs. The claims were heard together.

Decision

The High Court (Foxton J) held that there was no difficulty in revoking the final injunctions, and those orders properly consequential on them. This was confirmed by the Unicredit decision, in which the Court of Appeal had held it had power to revoke such relief pursuant to CPR 3.1(7).

The judge accepted that the Court of Appeal had also held there was a broader power to revoke declarations, and similar declarations on jurisdiction had featured in the order at issue in the Unicredit decision as featured in the present case. In the event, the Court of Appeal had decided not to revoke the parts of the order that reflected decisions on jurisdiction, on the basis that it would be unsatisfactory and there was no need to do so. The declarations simply reflected that the court did indeed have jurisdiction to determine what it had determined.

Declarations as to English court's jurisdiction and governing law

The judge looked first at the declarations that the English court had jurisdiction to determine the claims for final anti-suit relief and that the arbitration agreements were governed by English law (items (a) and (c) above). The finding that English law was the applicable law of the arbitration agreement was an essential element in the English court's decision that it had jurisdiction. These declarations therefore stood or fell together.

He noted the real risk of penalties if the claimants did not make sufficient efforts to revoke the declarations. However, this had also been a feature of the Unicredit decision. While it had been argued that there was stronger evidence in this case of the risk of penalties being imposed, the Unicredit decision had proceeded on the basis that the Russian court order required efforts to revoke the entirety of the order, not simply part of it.

The judge was satisfied that the claimants had taken every measure in their power to try to revoke these declarations, but he was not persuaded it would be appropriate to do so. The declarations were concerned with the position in the past, when the court orders were made. These matters could not be revoked "any more than a bell can be unrung". The English court had determined that it had jurisdiction to make the order because it had concluded that the arbitration agreements were governed by English law. Revoking the declarations would not change this position. This was a relevant matter for the court, not just the parties, and differed from an order for injunctive relieve or financial relief, which was primarily of concern to the parties.

Revoking the declarations might also create a misleading impression that when the English courts acted as they did, they might not have had jurisdiction, which was not the case. The judge noted, however, that it was open to the claimants to give an undertaking, which could be recorded in a court order, that they would not seek to rely on the declarations. The judge expressed the hope that the Russian courts would understand, in the spirit of comity, that these declarations were simply the English court recording its view of its jurisdiction and applying its law.

Declaration as to breach

The judge then considered the declarations that RCA's commencement and pursuit of the Russian proceedings constituted a breach of the relevant arbitration agreements as a matter of English law (item (d) above). Because of events that had happened since the order was made, he noted that there might now be scope to argue, for example, that the breach might have been waived. Unlike the declarations on jurisdiction, this declaration had a forward-looking element. Events since the order was made amounted to a material change of circumstances. It was therefore appropriate to revoke this declaration.

Costs orders

Finally, the judge considered the costs orders (item (b) above). These also had a forward-looking effect and operated exclusively in the claimants' favour. They did not concern the court and its power to act. The claimants had obtained the discharge of the injunctive relief on which they were based. This also amounted to a material change of circumstance. The costs orders should therefore be discharged.

Appeal

The claimants applied for permission to appeal, in keeping with their effort to make every attempt to set aside every element of the orders. The judge refused permission, finding that there was no serious issue to be tried nor any other reason to permit an appeal, such as an issue of general public importance.

Note: Permission to appeal was refused on 26 June 2025.