Sanctions-related issues featured prominently in the arbitration cases that came before the English courts last year, particularly applications for anti-suit injunctions (ASI) to restrain foreign court proceedings initiated in breach of an arbitration agreement. The catalyst for several of these ASIs was the Russian courts willingness to take exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving sanctions, notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement in the contract.

One such case was UniCredit Bank v RusChemAlliance, which arose after RusChemAlliance commenced proceedings against UniCredit in the Russian courts, despite the existence of an ICC arbitration agreement (Paris seat) in the guarantee. The Supreme Court affirmed that the English court could grant an ASI in a foreign-seated arbitration, provided there is a jurisdictional gateway available and England is the proper place for the claim. The gateway relied upon in that case was that the governing law of the arbitration agreement was English law, being the law of the guarantee. This decision demonstrates the English courts’ robust approach to enforcing parties’ bargain by restraining a breach of an arbitration agreement.