Maxamcorp International Sl v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm) (13 March 2026)

Maxamcorp International Sl v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm) (13 March 2026)

The court has jurisdiction and it is appropriate to continue and vary the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Eurotel LLC because Eurotel's Russian proceedings are in breach of arbitration agreements governed by or conditioned by English law, Maxam has a high probability of success on the merits, there are no strong reasons to refuse relief, delay is justified, and alternative service is warranted due to Eurotel's conduct and change of legal representatives.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 666 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Maxamcorp International SL; Defendant: Eurotel LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (commercial Court, Kbd) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions
Outcome
Interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions continued and varied as sought by Maxam until final hearing; permission for alternative service granted.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Assignment of Contractual Rights
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Anti Enforcement Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Alternative Service +1 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 6 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxamcorp International SL

Claimant

Eurotel LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (commercial Court, Kbd) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Eurotel LLC in respect of Russian proceedings brought in breach of arbitration agreements
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for quasi-contractual anti-suit injunction relief are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether delay or submission to jurisdiction precludes relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction and it is appropriate to continue and vary the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Eurotel LLC because Eurotel's Russian proceedings are in breach of arbitration agreements governed by or conditioned by English law, Maxam has a high probability of success on the merits, there are no strong reasons to refuse relief, delay is justified, and alternative service is warranted due to Eurotel's conduct and change of legal representatives.

Court Disposition

Interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions continued and varied as sought by Maxam until final hearing; permission for alternative service granted.

Orders

  • Continuation of anti-suit injunction restraining Eurotel from pursuing Russian proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements.
  • Continuation and clarification of anti-enforcement injunction to cover the 4 March 2026 Russian Judgment.