FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 468 (17 April 2026)

FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 468 (17 April 2026)

The Moscow proceedings to enforce the mortgage security were not in breach of the arbitration clause in the Facility Agreement. The dispute about whether an Event of Default had occurred fell within both the arbitration clause and the jurisdiction clause in the Mortgage Agreement, but the Mortgage Agreement expressly allowed immediate judicial enforcement in Moscow, with disputes to be resolved in those proceedings. There was no requirement for a prior arbitral award. Accordingly, the claim for an anti-suit injunction failed.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 468
Parties
Appellant/claimant: FH Holding Moscow Limited; Respondent/defendant: AO UniCredit Bank; Respondent/defendant: UniCredit S.p.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Competing Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Security, Contract Interpretation
Arbitration Conflict of Laws Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Competing Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Service Out of Jurisdiction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FH Holding Moscow Limited

Appellant/claimant

AO UniCredit Bank

Respondent/defendant

UniCredit S.p.A.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Moscow proceedings to levy execution under a Russian law mortgage agreement breached the arbitration clause in an English law facility agreement providing for Vienna arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign banks
  3. 3 Interpretation of competing dispute resolution clauses in related contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The Moscow proceedings to enforce the mortgage security were not in breach of the arbitration clause in the Facility Agreement. The dispute about whether an Event of Default had occurred fell within both the arbitration clause and the jurisdiction clause in the Mortgage Agreement, but the Mortgage Agreement expressly allowed immediate judicial enforcement in Moscow, with disputes to be resolved in those proceedings. There was no requirement for a prior arbitral award. Accordingly, the claim for an anti-suit injunction failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • No anti-suit injunction granted