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.

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

Dispute resolution analysis: The High Court granted Maire S.p.A. a final anti-suit injunction restraining LLC EuroChem North-West-2 from pursuing Russian proceedings under English-law guarantees. The court held that it had jurisdiction and that the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive because they relied on a Russian judgment obtained in breach of arbitration agreements and multiple tribunal and English court orders, and sought an illegitimate juridical advantage: the evidence indicated that the Russian courts would determine the contractors’ underlying liability without giving proper effect to English law or UK and EU sanctions. Considerations of comity did not prevent relief. The decision illustrates the circumstances in which the court may intervene even where the relevant contract does not prohibit proceedings in the foreign forum.