What is an anti-suit injunction and how does the UniCredit v RusChemAlliance decision affect my company?

An anti-suit injunction is a court order restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in a foreign court, typically where those proceedings breach an arbitration agreement. The UK Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance confirmed that English courts have jurisdiction to grant such injunctions to protect English-law arbitration clauses even where Russian court proceedings are already on foot. If your company has contracts with Russian-connected counterparties that include English-law arbitration clauses, this decision may provide a mechanism to restrain conflicting litigation – or, if you are the respondent, it may expose you to an injunction application.

Can I enforce an arbitral award or High Court judgment against a Russian entity in the UK?

Enforcement is possible in principle through the High Court, including by way of asset freezing orders and recognition of awards under the New York Convention, but it is subject to several layers of complexity. Where the counterparty or its assets are connected to parties designated under the UK Russia sanctions regime, any transfer of funds may require a licence from OFSI before it can proceed. The CPR provides the procedural framework, but practical recovery depends on the availability and location of assets and on obtaining any necessary regulatory clearances.

What should I do immediately if a Russian counterparty has started court proceedings in Russia despite an arbitration clause in our contract?

You should seek legal advice as quickly as possible, as the timing of any application to the English courts for an anti-suit injunction is sensitive once foreign proceedings are under way. In parallel, you should confirm whether any UK sanctions obligations apply to your counterparty and preserve all contractual documentation, correspondence, and evidence of the debt or dispute. Early action significantly improves the prospects of obtaining effective relief from the High Court and of protecting your position in any subsequent arbitration or enforcement proceedings.

UniCredit v RusChemAlliance: The Anti-Suit Injunction Fallout

In 2024 the United Kingdom Supreme Court confirmed that English courts can grant anti-suit injunctions compelling parties to honour arbitration agreements even where proceedings have already been commenced in Russian courts – a ruling that carries immediate consequences for any international company with outstanding contracts, unpaid invoices, or pending disputes that include English-law arbitration clauses. The decision in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance reaffirms the enforceability of such clauses under English law, while simultaneously heightening the complexity of cross-border enforcement against Russian-connected counterparties. Companies operating in or through the United Kingdom should assess their exposure now.

What the Supreme Court Decided and Why It Matters

The UK Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance addressed a situation in which a Russian entity commenced court proceedings in Russia despite being bound by an arbitration clause governed by English law. UniCredit sought – and ultimately obtained – an anti-suit injunction from the English courts, restraining RusChemAlliance from pursuing those Russian proceedings.

The significance of the ruling extends well beyond the two parties involved. It establishes, with Supreme Court authority, that English courts are prepared to exercise their jurisdiction to protect arbitration agreements against foreign litigation, including litigation brought in Russian courts, where the seat of arbitration or the governing law has a sufficient connection to England and Wales. This is not a minor procedural development: it redefines the practical value of English-law arbitration clauses in contracts with Russian or Russian-connected counterparties.

For companies holding contracts that reference ICC, LCIA, or other international arbitral seats with English-law governance, the decision provides a meaningful enforcement tool. Equally, for companies on the receiving end of such injunctions, it represents a significant constraint on their litigation strategy.

If you have contracts with Russian-connected parties that include arbitration clauses – or if you are currently navigating a cross-border dispute of this kind – we encourage you to contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to discuss your specific position.

Who Is Affected in the United Kingdom

The ruling has practical relevance across a broad range of commercial actors present or operating in the UK. Those most directly affected include:

Banks and financial institutions that issued guarantees, letters of credit, or other instruments in favour of Russian entities – the UniCredit case itself arose from a demand under a parent company guarantee linked to a gas infrastructure project.
Trading companies and commodity firms with long-term supply or offtake agreements containing English-law arbitration clauses.
Infrastructure and energy contractors whose contracts pre-date the current sanctions environment and remain partially unperformed or disputed.
Asset managers and funds holding debt instruments or receivables where the obligor is Russian-connected and Russian court proceedings have been threatened or commenced.
Any creditor pursuing debt collection or enforcement of judgment against a Russian-linked counterparty through the High Court, where conflicting Russian proceedings complicate asset freezing or CPR-based enforcement steps.

Companies registered at Companies House with Russian beneficial ownership structures, or those subject to FCA or OFSI oversight in relation to sanctioned counterparties, should also consider how the anti-suit injunction framework intersects with their regulatory obligations. Seeking an injunction – or complying with one – may engage sanctions compliance analysis that sits alongside the purely procedural questions.

The Sanctions Dimension

The UniCredit v RusChemAlliance litigation arose against the backdrop of the UK's Russia sanctions regime. OFSI (the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation) has issued guidance on financial dealings with designated entities, and the intersection of sanctions restrictions with contractual enforcement obligations creates a layered compliance challenge.

Where a creditor holds an unpaid invoice or seeks to recover on a payment order against a sanctioned or sanctions-adjacent Russian entity, the available enforcement routes are constrained. Anti-suit injunctions do not themselves resolve the payment; they preserve the arbitral forum. Actual recovery – whether through asset freezing under a High Court order, enforcement against UK-based assets, or recognition of an arbitral award – requires separate steps and is subject to OFSI licensing requirements where the counterparty is designated.

Companies should not assume that winning an injunction or an arbitral award automatically translates into recovery. The route from judgment to payment involves enforcement mechanics under CPR, asset tracing, and in some cases a licence from OFSI before funds can move. Late payment interest accrues, but collecting it requires the same enforcement pathway.

Immediate Action Items for International Companies

Given the current state of English law following this Supreme Court decision, international companies with relevant exposure should consider the following steps as a matter of priority:

Audit arbitration clauses. Review all contracts with Russian or Russian-connected counterparties to identify the governing law, arbitral seat, and any existing dispute resolution proceedings. Note which clauses are English-law governed or provide for a seat in England and Wales.
Monitor Russian court filings. If counterparties have commenced or threatened proceedings in Russia, obtain legal advice immediately. The window for seeking an anti-suit injunction from the High Court is time-sensitive once foreign proceedings are on foot.
Assess OFSI and FCA status. Confirm whether your counterparty is a designated person under UK sanctions or connected to one. Any enforcement or payment step may require an OFSI licence; this analysis should run in parallel with any litigation strategy.
Preserve evidence of debt. For companies with unpaid invoices or disputed payment obligations, ensure documentation is organised and accessible. Debt collection and enforcement of judgment proceedings before the High Court depend on a clear evidentiary record, as do applications under CPR for freezing orders or summary judgment.
Consider restructuring exposure. Where performance of a contract has become commercially or legally impossible, early advice on restructuring or insolvency options for the UK entity involved can protect value and limit liability. This is particularly relevant where Russian-connected obligors are entering or threatening insolvency proceedings of their own.

For a deeper analysis of how English courts have approached anti-suit injunctions in the context of Russian proceedings more broadly, see our detailed review at Anti-Suit Injunctions: English Courts' Response to Russian Proceedings.

Enforcement Pathways and Practical Considerations

For creditors who have obtained or are seeking to obtain an arbitral award against a Russian-connected counterparty, the enforcement question is now the central practical issue. The High Court can, in principle, assist with asset freezing (a Worldwide Freezing Order or a domestic freezing order over UK assets), recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention, and CPR Part 24 summary judgment applications where the debt is not genuinely disputed.

However, each of these routes carries its own procedural requirements, timeframes, and – where the counterparty is connected to sanctioned parties – regulatory clearance requirements. The UniCredit v RusChemAlliance decision improves the legal landscape for claimants by strengthening the arbitral forum, but it does not simplify enforcement. Companies should enter any enforcement process with a realistic assessment of the steps involved and the time likely required.

Our debt recovery team advises international companies on the full enforcement chain in the UK, from pre-action correspondence and High Court proceedings through to asset realisation. Further information on our approach is available at Debt Recovery – United Kingdom. Where the counterparty's financial position is uncertain, early consideration of insolvency and restructuring options may also be warranted; our practice in this area is described at Bankruptcy and Restructuring – United Kingdom.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court's ruling in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance is a significant marker in the evolving legal landscape for cross-border disputes involving Russian counterparties. For companies with existing contracts, live disputes, or enforcement proceedings touching the UK, the decision creates both new tools and new considerations that require prompt legal assessment.

Ferraz & Whitmore advises clients on cross-border dispute resolution, enforcement strategy, and sanctions compliance across multiple jurisdictions. If your company is directly or indirectly affected by the issues discussed in this alert, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss your position in a confidential consultation. Please write to us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or use our contacts page to arrange a call at your convenience.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.

Reviewed by

James Kellner

Legal Analyst · IP & AI Law