Reform of anti-social behaviour powers (2014) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) has reformed the tools available for dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB). The aim was to consolidate remedies and to make the process simpler and more effective. In July 2014, the government issued new statutory guidance ‘Reform of anti-social behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals’. This guidance was updated in August 2019, in January 2021 to include the Sentencing Code, introduced by the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) which repealed and replaced ABCPA 2014, Pt 2, and has been revised regularly since. The first part of the statutory guidance is focused on putting the victim first by putting them at the centre of the response to the ASB. Overall a very strong emphasis is put on ensuring that the powers are used appropriately and proportionately to the specific behaviour causing harm or nuisance. In July 2022, the Home Office published the Anti-social behaviour principles developed by the Anti-social Behaviour Strategic Board to describe a consistent approach

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court dismissed the claimant’s application for a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining the pursuit of foreign legal proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement between parties. It found that the claimant had unduly delayed the commencement of its application and that considerations of comity militated against the grant of anti-suit relief. In addition, the court found that the injunction sought was in substance an anti-enforcement injunction seeking to enjoin the defendant from relying on or enforcing the foreign judgements issued, and would be an indirect interference with the execution of those foreign judgments. The court further held that the claimant failed to make disclosure of material facts, in breach of the duty on litigants to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications. Written by Rob Palmer, partner and Shi Jin Chia, senior associate at Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: On 29 November 2016, LaMia Flight CP 2933 ran out of fuel and crashed into mountainous terrain in Colombia, killing 71 of its 77 passengers. LaMia were found to be at fault. The crash survivors and deceased’s personal representatives (the ‘Individuals’) sued LaMia and others in Florida, securing a US$844m default judgment following which they sought to join Bisa (LaMia’s insurer), TMK and others (the ‘Reinsurers’) and to file a Third-Party Complaint against those entities and Aon. Aon and the Reinsurers in turn applied for anti-suit injunctive relief against the Individuals in the English Commercial Court and were granted that relief on an interim basis. On the return date, Simon Salzedo KC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) determined that the original injunction in favour of Aon should continue but the interim injunction in favour of the Reinsurers was discharged, the judge disagreeing that the Florida proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. Charlotte Eborall of 3VB Chambers in London explains the reasons given by the judge for his decision and comments on the useful summary provided in the judgment of the legal principles relating to non-contractual and quasi-contractual anti-suit injunctive relief.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) granted an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain foreign proceedings seeking to challenge a decision by an arbitral tribunal. The seat of the arbitration was Singapore, and the Singapore courts had exclusive jurisdiction to determine any such challenge. The court summarised the principles applicable to the issue of ASIs and concluded that the requirements for an ASI were met and there was no good reason not to grant it. Although the defendant was linked to a foreign government, it did not enjoy sovereign immunity because it was a ‘separate entity’ and the contract was a ‘commercial transaction’. Written by Rob Palmer, partner, Shi Jin Chia, senior associate, and Hugo Petit, associate, at Hogan Lovells.

This Precedent claim form, with accompanying Drafting Notes, is for making an anti-suit injunction application to restrain or discontinue litigation

Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (KBD) OR Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] Before justice [Insert name] In the matter of AN arbitration And in an arbitration claim Between: 1 [CLAIMANT’S NAME] Claimant and 2 [DEFENDANT’S NAME] Defendant Draft order Upon the application of the Claimant dated [insert date] And upon reading the evidence submitted, including

Claimant [[insert number of witness statement eg First]] witness statement of [Insert witness name] Exhibits: [Insert exhibit reference] Date on which the statement was made: [Insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (KBD) OR Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] In the matter of AN arbitration And in an arbitration claim Between: 1 [Claimant’s name] Claimant and 2 [Defendant’s name] Defendant Witness statement of [insert witness name] I, [insert witness name] of [insert witness address], WILL SAY as follows: Introduction 1 I am [insert position or details of witness and their role and relationship to the Claimant]. I am authorised to make this witness statement on the Claimant’s behalf. 2 I make this witness statement in support of the Claimant’s application for an order that: 2.1 The arbitration agreement in the [insert details of relevant contract containing the arbitration agreement] (the “Agreement”) is not null or void, inoperative or otherwise incapable of being performed. That arbitration agreement is valid and binding on the Defendant. 2.2 Pursuant to [section

Arbitration analysis: Mr Justice Walker in the Commercial Court refused an application for an anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant bank from pursuing or continuing to pursue proceedings pending before a Chinese court in breach of an arbitration agreement (providing for London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) arbitration) incorporated in a bill of lading. The decision is of interest to practitioners as it highlights the importance of applying promptly for this form of equitable relief.

Arbitration analysis: In its decision of 17 June 2024, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (‘the Court’) dismissed an appeal against the lower court’s decision to deny issuing an ‘anti-anti-suit injunction’. The injunction was requested to prevent enforcement of a decision by the St Petersburg Arbitration Court which imposed a fine on Claimants for non-compliance with an anti-suit injunction prohibiting them to continue ongoing arbitration proceedings in Sweden. The Court held that there was no claim for injunctive relief because filing an anti-suit injunction in Russia did not constitute a tortious act per se. In particular, it was found that the anti-suit injunction and the corresponding fine did not constitute an infringement of the right of access to German courts because the injunction concerned a prohibition to continue arbitration proceedings outside of Germany. Furthermore, the Court did not consider the violation of the arbitration agreement a moral indecency because the anti-suit injunction was a remedy explicitly available under Russian law. Written by Dr Annekathrin Schmoll, Dr Vanessa Ludwig and Dr Nikita Malevanny, all associate attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

This Practice Note considers when the courts of England and Wales may grant anti-suit injunctions where proceedings have been commenced or threatened in an EU Member State. It explains the historical prohibition under the Brussels regime, the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement transitional provisions and the position after IP completion day, when the UK became a third state for these purposes. This Practice Note does not consider anti-suit injunctions sought in support of arbitration agreements. For guidance on that issue, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales). Note the Court of Justice of the European Union is referenced as the Court of Justice. Definitions • anti-suit injunctions—injunctions ordered by a court to restrain a party from commencing/continuing proceedings in another country. For detailed guidance on what is meant by an anti-suit injunction, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—principles • Brussels I (recast)—Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) • Withdrawal Agreement—is defined in section 39(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as the agreement

Arbitration analysis: The High Court refused Clyde & Co LLP’s application under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for an anti-suit injunction restraining Dubai Labour Court proceedings brought by Mr Abhimanyu Jalan. Mr Justice Michael Green held that Clyde had failed to establish, to a high degree of probability, that there was a still valid and binding English arbitration agreement governing the dispute. That conclusion turned not on UAE law directly invalidating an English-law arbitration agreement, but on the proper construction of the contractual suite as a whole, including the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MOHRE) employment contracts and their mandatory UAE labour law wording. Even if a valid arbitration agreement had existed, the judge would have refused relief on discretionary grounds, given the employment context, the mandatory UAE labour law regime and Clyde’s conduct towards Mr Jalan.

Commercial analysis: The Commercial Court granted anti-suit injunction (ASI) relief to directors of Viva, a Greek fintech company, restraining JP Morgan (JPM) from pursuing tort claims against them in Greece, as such proceedings breached an implied obligation in a shareholders’ agreement (SHA) not to bring proceedings in jurisdictions where exclusion of liability provisions would not be effective. The court found that clause 33 of the SHA, which provided that ‘no party (nor any of its Representatives) shall owe any duty of care or have any liability in tort or otherwise to any other party (or its respective Representatives)’, contained an implied promise not to sue in jurisdictions that would not give effect to such provisions. The court rejected alternative ASI relief claims based on quasi-contractual arguments and vexatious conduct. This decision demonstrates how contractual immunity clauses can be enforced through ASI even against non-signatory third parties, providing important guidance for commercial drafters on extraterritorial enforcement of liability exclusions. Written by Parham Kouchikali (partner) and Natalia Faekova (Senior Associate) at Taylor Wessing LLP.