UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC

UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC

The Court of Appeal has power under CPR Part 3.1(7) to vary or revoke a final anti-suit injunction in exceptional circumstances. UniCredit, acting in its own commercial interests and under significant risk of penalty from the Russian court, is entitled to seek discharge of the injunction. Public policy concerns do not outweigh the injustice of forcing UniCredit to risk massive penalties. The injunctive parts of the CA’s Order are discharged, but declaratory parts on jurisdiction remain.

Parties
Applicant/appellant/claimant: UniCredit Bank GmbH; Respondent/defendant: RusChemAlliance LLC; Advocate to the Court: Attorney General (Thomas Sebastian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Revoke or Vary Final Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Application allowed; injunctive parts of the CA’s Order discharged, declaratory parts remain.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Sanctions, Public Policy
Commercial Law International Arbitration Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements Sanctions Public Policy

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UniCredit Bank GmbH

Applicant/appellant/claimant

RusChemAlliance LLC

Respondent/defendant

Attorney General (Thomas Sebastian)

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Revoke or Vary Final Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to revoke or vary a final anti-suit injunction under CPR Part 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether UniCredit is at risk of penalty under Russian court orders
  3. 3 Whether coercion or duress affects the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has power under CPR Part 3.1(7) to vary or revoke a final anti-suit injunction in exceptional circumstances. UniCredit, acting in its own commercial interests and under significant risk of penalty from the Russian court, is entitled to seek discharge of the injunction. Public policy concerns do not outweigh the injustice of forcing UniCredit to risk massive penalties. The injunctive parts of the CA’s Order are discharged, but declaratory parts on jurisdiction remain.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; injunctive parts of the CA’s Order discharged, declaratory parts remain.

Orders

  • The injunctive parts of the CA’s Order at paragraphs [8]-[11] are discharged.
  • Declaratory parts of the CA’s Order reflecting jurisdiction remain in force.