Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal in the case of UK P&I Club v Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela has upheld the principle of state immunity. The judgment denying an anti-suit injunction against Venezuela in a commercial dispute, emphasised the legitimate aim of complying with international law to promote comity and good relations between states through the respect of another state's sovereignty, and that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part, including those relating to the grant of state immunity. Written by Vivek Kapoor, barrister and Arbitrator, 39 Essex Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The case concerned an application for an anti-suit injunction in the context of a dispute arising from a charterparty. The first claimant was the owner of a vessel which the charterparty pertained to and the second claimant was the owner of another vessel within the same group, whilst the defendant was the charterer. The claimants successfully sought an anti-suit injunction on the basis that (i) the defendant had contractually agreed not to prosecute proceedings arising from the charterparty in Yemen and Djibouti, and (ii) given that the charterparty contained an LMAA arbitration clause, it would be vexatious and oppressive to allow the defendant to continue their proceedings in Djibouti and Yemen. Written by Daniel Jukes, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers and part-time doctoral student at Oxford University.

Anti-suit injunctions under Brazilian law Anti-suit injunctions are a mechanism used to restrain court and/or arbitral proceedings. In international arbitration, the term is usually employed to define an action to bar a party from pursuing court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. For instance, when a recalcitrant party attempts to bring a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement before a domestic court, the other party may request that a court or an arbitral tribunal grants an anti-suit injunction to forbid the party from initiating or proceeding with that legal action, in order to protect the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Although the use of anti-suit injunctions is widespread in many jurisdictions, it is generally accepted that this specific form of relief is not available under Brazilian law, in particular considering the fundamental right of access to justice provided in the Brazilian Federal Constitution(art 5, XXXV). In light of this provision, an anti-suit injunction issued in Brazil aiming to prohibit a party from presenting its

This Practice Note has been updated to reflect the amendments introduced to the Arbitration Act 1996 by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025). References to the AA 1996 are to the Act in its amended form.For further information see: Arbitration Act 2025 commencement and transitional provisions This Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions (or ASI(s)) issued by the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand) in support of arbitration proceedings, and how and when they might be used to restrain breaches of an arbitration agreement. Restraining breach of an arbitration agreement As a private, consensual process, disputes agreed to be subject to arbitration are to be determined by an appointed arbitral tribunal, not national courts. However, when faced with an arbitration (or the prospect of one), a party, for various reasons, may seek to commence litigation in national courts in order to avoid the arbitration. When court proceedings are (or may be) commenced in a foreign court (ie a court other than that of the seat of arbitration)

This Practice Note considers the availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration from New York courts. References to US judgments are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Parties that agree to arbitration sometimes have second thoughts when a dispute arises, especially if a party thinks it can get a better result in court. But Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to stay suits ‘brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration...until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement’, provided the applicant for the stay does not ‘default in proceeding with such arbitration’ or otherwise waive its right to arbitrate (9 U.S.C. § 3; Katz v Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir. 2015)). US federal courts were split on whether a court should dismiss or merely stay an action

Arbitration analysis: This decision of the Commercial Court illustrates the English courts’ readiness to deploy contempt of court as a coercive and punitive sanction to enforce anti-suit injunctions. The court held that a corporate party and its directing individual were in contempt for deliberately continuing foreign proceedings in breach of a final anti-suit injunction granted in support of a London-seated arbitration. The judgment demonstrates that non-compliance with court orders enforcing arbitration agreements and awards may expose both companies and individuals to serious sanctions, including the realistic prospect of imprisonment. For arbitration practitioners, the case reinforces the court’s robust pro-arbitration stance and its willingness to protect the integrity of the arbitral process through the full range of supervisory powers. It also provides important guidance on attributing contempt to corporate entities through their ‘directing mind and will’, and on evidential and procedural issues where defendants seek to evade compliance by non-attendance or informal changes in control. Written by Professor Brandon Malone, arbitrator at Arbitra International.

This Practice Note considers the different forms of order that an anti-suit injunction might take. It considers interim and final injunctions, prohibitive and mandatory injunctions as well as injunctions used in single forum cases and those used to obtain partial restraint. Types of anti-suit injunction Anti-suit injunctions: • may be interim—applies for a specific period of time • final—will be applied indefinitely Anti-suit injunctions are generally granted after the proceedings to be injuncted have been commenced. However, in rare cases qua timet relief may be granted. When granted there are either in • prohibitive form—an anti-suit injunction is usually in a prohibitive form. In essence, the court orders a party not to continue with/or commence proceedings in another jurisdiction • in mandatory form—these are exceptional and can be narrow eg they require a stay of the foreign proceedings or much broader so that they require a party to discontinue the foreign proceedings Anti-suit injunctions may be used in: • in single forum cases • to obtain partial restraint Quia timet relief—before the proceedings are commenced Anti-suit

This Practice Note provides guidance on making an application for an anti-suit injunction, including the test that the court will apply, together with issues that should be considered both before and when making the application. For guidance on what an anti-suit inunction is and when they are available, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—principles. An application for an anti-suit injunction engages procedural rules which are common to all applications for an interim injunction. For general guidance on making an application for an interim injunction, see Practice Notes: • Interim injunctions—on notice applications • Interim injunctions—without notice applications The following sections highlight particular aspects of the application procedure which are specific to an application for an anti-suit injunction. What follows should be read as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, the general guidance referred to above. References to the courts of England and Wales are referenced as the English courts. Practical consideration: when seeking an anti-suit or anti-anti-suit injunction, the courts will scrutinise the application and make sure that it is justified

This Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions which are a form of injunctive relief used to restrain a party from either commencing or continuing court proceedings. It explains what an anti-suit injunction is and the power of the courts to grant such an injunction. It then explores the basis on which an anti-suit injunction may be refused or granted. It considers the effect of a breach of an anti-suit injunction as well as the impact of foreign anti-suit injunctions on proceedings in the courts of England and Wales. For guidance on: • making an application for an anti-suit injunction, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—making an application • anti-suit injunctions in cases involving an exclusive jurisdiction clause, see Practice Note: Exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-suit injunctions • anti-suit injunctions and the EU, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions and EU court proceedings—pre and post Brexit • anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales) Different considerations apply when dealing with the following: • an anti-enforcement injunction to restrain

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed the defendants’ jurisdiction challenge and granted final anti-suit relief enforcing a London arbitration agreement in a Bermuda-issued excess property policy. Louisiana statutory arguments were irrelevant because the arbitration agreement was expressly governed by English law. The claimant also recovered US$709,052.88 damages for US legal costs, an indemnity for future US costs, and indemnity costs of the English action

1 Anti-tax evasion facilitation 1.1 For the purposes of this clause 1: 1.1.1 the expressions ‘Associated With’, ‘Prevention Procedures’, ‘UK Tax Evasion Offence’ and ‘Foreign Tax Evasion Offence’ shall be construed in accordance with Part 3 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017) and guidance published under it; 1.1.2 Corporate Failure to Prevent Tax Evasion Facilitation Offence means an offence under section 45 of CFA 2017 and/or section 46 of CFA 2017[ and any other applicable United Kingdom laws, legislation, statutory instruments, and regulations in relation to preventing the facilitation of tax evasion] [ and any similar or equivalent laws in any other relevant jurisdiction [including [specify]] ]; 1.1.3 Policies means the Customer’s anti-tax evasion facilitation policies as set out in Schedule [insert] as updated by the Customer and notified to the Supplier from time to time; 1.1.4 Supplier Associated Person means all or any of the following: (a) the Supplier’s officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and persons Associated With the Supplier (Supplier’s Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of the Supplier’s Associates; in each case, involved in performing services for or on behalf of the Supplier, the Services, and this Agreement.

Local Government analysis: This case involved a successful statutory challenge to an anti-terrorism traffic order (ATTRO) made under section 22C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984). In prohibiting vehicles from entering a restricted area around the Royal Albert Hall (RAH) to protect the public against vehicle-borne terrorist attacks, the scheme was found to operate in a manner which disproportionately interfered with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights by restricting vehicular access to the highway immediately adjacent to his family home from 12 noon onwards daily. The decision emphasises the need for traffic authorities to properly consider whether less intrusive measures could have been used, together with the severity of the consequences on an individual’s Article 8 rights, in determining whether a fair balance has been struck between an individual’s human rights and the public interest, even where anti-terrorism measures are involved. It further indicates the importance of an authority undertaking a Convention-compliant proportionality exercise to consider matters from the perspective of the claimant’s human rights. Written by Ruth Stockley, barrister at Kings Chambers, Manchester.