Google LLC & Anor v Nao Tsargrad Media

Google LLC & Anor v Nao Tsargrad Media

The court granted anti-enforcement and anti-suit injunctions because the claimants demonstrated valid exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration agreements, Article 248 is permissive, the Astreinte penalties are exorbitant and enforcement is sought against non-contractual parties, and there is no legitimate juridical advantage for the Russian entities to proceed in Russia. Delay was immaterial given the infancy of enforcement proceedings and the practical impossibility of enforcement in Russia.

Parties
Claimant: Google LLC; Claimant: Google Ireland Limited; Defendant: NAO Tsargrad Media; Defendant: No Fond Pravoslavnogo Televideniya; Defendant: ANO TV-Novosti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Judgment
Outcome
injunctions granted
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Sanctions, Arbitration Agreements
Contract Law International Law Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Anti Enforcement Injunctions Jurisdiction Sanctions Arbitration Agreements

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Google LLC

Claimant

Google Ireland Limited

Claimant

NAO Tsargrad Media

Defendant

No Fond Pravoslavnogo Televideniya

Defendant

ANO TV-Novosti

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether anti-enforcement and anti-suit injunctions should be granted to prevent enforcement of Russian court orders in foreign jurisdictions
  2. 2 Whether exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Court Procedural Code is mandatory or permissive

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted anti-enforcement and anti-suit injunctions because the claimants demonstrated valid exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration agreements, Article 248 is permissive, the Astreinte penalties are exorbitant and enforcement is sought against non-contractual parties, and there is no legitimate juridical advantage for the Russian entities to proceed in Russia. Delay was immaterial given the infancy of enforcement proceedings and the practical impossibility of enforcement in Russia.

Court Disposition

injunctions granted

Orders

  • Anti-enforcement injunctions granted to prevent enforcement of Russian Astreinte orders in foreign jurisdictions
  • Anti-suit injunctions granted to prevent continuation or commencement of foreign proceedings