LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2444 (Comm) (06 October 2022)

LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2444 (Comm) (06 October 2022)

The anti-suit injunction should be continued because the arbitration agreement between the parties requires disputes to be resolved by arbitration in London, and applications for interim relief must be made to the courts of England and Wales as the seat of arbitration unless exceptional circumstances apply, which are not present here. The defendants' arguments for foreign proceedings do not meet the threshold for the exception, and permitting such proceedings would undermine the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. There was no material non-disclosure by the claimant justifying discharge of the injunction.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2444 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: LLC Eurochem North-West-2; Defendant: Tecnimont SpA; Defendant: LLC MT Russia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Anti Suit Injunction / Substantive Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Anti-suit injunction continued; application to discharge refused; no derogation for foreign proceedings granted.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction Clauses, Interim Relief, Sanctions Compliance
Arbitration Commercial Law Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Clauses Interim Relief Sanctions Compliance

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LLC Eurochem North-West-2

Claimant

Tecnimont SpA

Defendant

LLC MT Russia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Anti Suit Injunction / Substantive Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be continued or discharged on its merits
  2. 2 Whether the ASI should be discharged for alleged non-disclosure by the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should be permitted to commence proceedings in France or Italy to restrain banks from honouring bonds

Ratio Decidendi

The anti-suit injunction should be continued because the arbitration agreement between the parties requires disputes to be resolved by arbitration in London, and applications for interim relief must be made to the courts of England and Wales as the seat of arbitration unless exceptional circumstances apply, which are not present here. The defendants' arguments for foreign proceedings do not meet the threshold for the exception, and permitting such proceedings would undermine the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. There was no material non-disclosure by the claimant justifying discharge of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Anti-suit injunction continued; application to discharge refused; no derogation for foreign proceedings granted.

Orders

  • The anti-suit injunction is continued on its existing terms.
  • Defendants are restrained from commencing or pursuing proceedings in foreign courts to restrain or delay payment under the bonds, except in England or by London arbitration.