UniCredit v RusChemAlliance
UK Supreme Court · Other public awards · England and Wales · 18 September 2024
Why it matters
The leading modern authority on anti-suit injunctions supporting arbitration, and the defining sanctions-era arbitration case. The Supreme Court confirmed that where an arbitration agreement is governed by English law, the English courts can restrain foreign court proceedings brought in breach of it, even though the seat is Paris and French courts issue no such injunctions. Every bank and contractor caught between sanctions and Russian Article 248 claims now starts here.
Summary
RusChemAlliance, a Russian company building a gas facility, had bonds from UniCredit guaranteeing a German contractor's performance. The bonds said disputes would be arbitrated under ICC rules in Paris, and the contracts were governed by English law. After sanctions stopped the project, RusChemAlliance ignored the arbitration clauses and sued UniCredit in Russia, using Russian legislation, Article 248, that gives Russian courts jurisdiction over sanctions-affected disputes regardless of what the contract says. UniCredit asked the English courts for an anti-suit injunction, an order telling RusChemAlliance to stop the Russian case. The puzzle was why England at all, when the seat was Paris. The Supreme Court answered in two steps. First, applying its earlier Enka v Chubb framework, the arbitration agreements were governed by English law, because the parties' choice of English law for the contract extended to the arbitration clause within it. Second, that English governing law gave the English courts a sufficient connection to enforce the promise, and the fact that French courts do not grant anti-suit injunctions made England the proper place, since otherwise the promise to arbitrate would go unprotected entirely. The injunction stood. The case now anchors the standard sanctions-era playbook and shows how much turns on the often-ignored question of what law governs the arbitration clause itself.
The detail
Parties: UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC
Case number: [2024] UKSC 30
Outcome: Anti-suit injunction upheld: the English courts restrained Russian proceedings brought in breach of Paris-seated arbitration agreements.
Applicable law: English law as the law governing the arbitration agreements (following Enka v Chubb); ICC arbitration agreements seated in Paris; Russian Article 248 jurisdictional legislation in the background.
Issues in play: Sanctions-era forum war: Russian legislation pulling disputes into Russian courts against contractual promises to arbitrate in Paris, with the English court asked to police a foreign-seated arbitration agreement.
Read the full decision at UK Supreme Court ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.