In a significant ruling, UniCreditBank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, the Supreme Court has affirmed the availability of anti-suit injunctions to support foreign-seated arbitrations by upholding the Court of Appeal decision. Aforementioned decision stems from a dispute over a construction project in Russia, where conflicting legal actions were initiated despite an existing arbitration agreement governed by English law. This ruling is significant for the international arbitration prospects, reinforcing England's position as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction and providing essential guidance on the interpretation of arbitration agreements.

‍Understanding Anti-Suit Injunctions‍

Anti-suit injunctions arejudicial orders that prevent a party from initiating or continuing legalproceedings in a different jurisdiction. They serve as a mechanism to protectthe arbitration process and prevent conflicting judgments from multiple jurisdictions.Courts ensure that arbitration agreements are respected and upheld, allowingparties to resolve disputes in a manner they initially agreed upon.‍

Background of the Case‍

The dispute originated from a construction project in Russia, managed by a German construction firm. UniCredit Bank, along with Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, issued advance payment guarantees on behalf of this company to RusChemAlliance. Following financial sanctions and the termination of the construction contract, RusChemAlliance sought to enforce these guarantees in Russian courts, prompting UniCredit to decline payment based on the sanctions.

Each guarantee contained an arbitration agreement stipulating that disputes would be resolved through ICC arbitration seated in Paris, governed by English law. However, RCA initiated legal proceedings in Russia, breaching the arbitration agreements.

Consequently, the banks sought an anti-suit injunction (ASI) from English court to restrain RusChemAlliance from pursuing litigation in Russia.‍

Key Developments in Court‍

The journey to the Supreme Court was marked by several pivotal rulings.

Initially, the High Court declined to grant an interim ASIto UniCredit, ruling that the arbitration agreement was governed by French law and thus lacked jurisdiction for service outside England.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, asserting that the governing law of the arbitration agreement was indeed English law, as inferred from the broader contract. They determined that England was the proper forum for enforcement due to the unenforceability of the arbitration agreement in Russia.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision, confirming that the arbitration agreement was governed by English law and that English courts were the appropriate venue for granting the ASI.

‍Implications of the Ruling‍

The Supreme Court decision carries significant implications for international arbitration.‍

Clarity and Certainty: The ruling provides clear guidance on the enforceability of ASIs in support of foreign-seated arbitrations, reassuring parties that English courts will uphold their arbitration agreements.‍

Encouragement of International Arbitration: By affirming the role of ASIs, the Supreme Court strengthens England's position as a favourable jurisdiction for international arbitration, potentially attracting more foreign investments.‍

Future Drafting of Arbitration Clauses: The decision underscores the importance of careful drafting of arbitration clauses. Parties must clearly define the governing law of the arbitration agreement separate from the main contract to ensure effective enforcement of their rights.‍

Conclusion‍

The Supreme Court's ruling in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC marks an important moment in the enforcement of arbitration agreements. This ruling strengthens the principles of party autonomy and the fairness of arbitration agreements, adopting a more secure environment for international business. In addition, this landmark case provides greater confidence in the enforceability of arbitration agreements and underscores the importance of carefully drafting such clauses. ‍

Key Takeaways‍

The Supreme Court's decision emphasises that, in contracts governed by English law, English courts will typically issue ASIs to ensure that parties adhere to their contractual commitment to arbitrate disputes, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

This decision positions England as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, potentially attracting more foreign investment and facilitating smoother dispute resolution processes.

The decision serves as a powerful reminder that when there is a sufficient connection to England, the courts will assist by granting ASIs where appropriate.

‍