Skip to main content
Part 1: Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank

This series of articles will examine developments in the anti-suit and anti-anti-suit jurisdictions (“ASI” and “AASI” respectively) in light of the recent Supreme Court decision1 in Unicredit v RusChemAlliance2, the clarifications offered by those decisions and some of the key considerations when seeking such relief from the Courts.

In this extended introduction to the series, we set out below the background to the recent rise in ASIs, the test for an ASI under English law and the sources of the jurisdiction, before turning to the key findings in the Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank decisions.

Recent Case Law Overview

The recent case law developments have considered a number of key questions including in relation to jurisdiction, applicable law to arbitration agreements, conflicts of law, exceptional circumstances militating against the grant of relief. Those cases include:

  • Commerzbank v RusChemAlliance [2023] EWHC 2510 (Comm) – which considered the question of a foreign seated arbitration and whether English law could be the applicable law of the arbitration agreement;
  • SQD v QYP [2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm); Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 114 – which considered whether the anti-suit jurisdiction of the English courts is limited only to arbitrations within the jurisdiction;
  • Unicredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm); [2024] EWCA Civ 64 – which considered the question of the governing law of the arbitration agreement and the question of the appropriate forum;
  • Bourlakova and Ors v Bourlakov and Ors [2024] EWHC 929 (Ch) – which considered the noncontractual jurisdiction for ASIs;
  • Barclays Bank v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm) – which considered the question of whether factors such as frustration and delay would militate against the Court exercising its discretion to award an ASI ensuring compliance with an arbitration agreement; and
  • Magomedov and Ors v PJSC Transneft and Ors [2024] EWHC 1176 (Comm) – which considered the question of the non-contractual jurisdiction for granting an AASI.

Each of these judgments and the key findings are explored in greater detail throughout this series of articles.

Download the full PDF article here →

1 At the time of writing the judgment is not available, but the Supreme Court has confirmed that a final injunction can and should be granted by the English Courts in support of a Paris-seated arbitration agreement.
2 Unicredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] EWCA Civ 64

Kit Smith (Managing Associate) is a member of Keidan Harrison’s Dispute Resolution team.