Overview
The English Court of Appeal’s recent decision in LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA and MT Russia LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 5 marks a notable development in the use of anti-suit measures within English law. Reportedly a first of its kind, the ruling underscores the potential reach of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to provide relief that may influence cross-border litigation patterns while arbitration proceeds.
What is an anti-suit injunction and why it matters
Anti-suit injunctions are court orders intended to restrain a party from pursuing parallel or conflicting proceedings in other jurisdictions. In international arbitration contexts, they can help preserve the integrity and efficiency of the arbitral process by preventing parallel litigation that could undermine arbitration outcomes or waste resources. The NW2 decision signals a willingness of English courts to employ peremptory relief under the Arbitration Act to manage cross-border disputes more proactively.
The legal mechanism: Section 42 of the Arbitration Act
Section 42 provides a framework for British courts to lend support to arbitration agreements, including certain orders designed to facilitate a fair and effective arbitral process. In NW2 v Tecnimont, the Court of Appeal upheld a court order issued under this provision, aligning with a trend toward granting swift relief to protect the arbitral process where party behavior risks inefficiency or prejudice to one side.
Peremptory orders and relief scope
Peremptory orders are mandated directions that require compliance without delay. In the context of arbitration, such relief can include prohibiting parallel proceedings, delaying litigation in other forums, or compelling actions that preserve the status quo. The NW2 ruling illustrates how these orders can be tailored to balance competing interests, including the rights of both claimants and respondents, while prioritising the integrity of the arbitration process.
Implications for cross-border disputes
The decision has several practical implications for practitioners:
– It reinforces the English courts’ role in supervising international arbitration when proceedings cross borders.
– It provides a potential tool to deter parallel litigation that could undermine the arbitration timetable or the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings.
– It may influence how parties structure their arbitration clauses and anticipatory steps when facing multi-jurisdictional disputes.
Strategic considerations for counsel
Lawyers advising clients in international disputes should consider the following:
– Early-stage risk assessment: Evaluate whether parallel proceedings are likely or already underway and whether an anti-suit order could be warranted under Section 42.
– Timing and evidence: Gather clear evidence of risk to the arbitral process, including potential prejudice or delay, to support an application for relief.
– Proportionality and scope: Ensure that any requested relief is proportionate and narrowly tailored to preserve the arbitration’s progress without overreaching into issues better left to the arbitral tribunal.
What practitioners should watch next
As English courts navigate the evolving landscape of anti-suit relief, subsequent judgments will reveal how Section 42 interacts with international arbitration norms, party autonomy, and the judiciary’s appetite for prompt, decisive measures. The NW2 decision may prompt further refinements in practice directions, briefing standards, and the drafting of arbitration agreements to clarify permissible anti-suit relief and its boundaries.
