International Arbitration: English Commercial Court Refuses to Grant Anti-Suit Injunction to Stop Russian Foreclosure Proceedings

In a judgment handed down on 25 November 2025, the English Commercial Court (the Court) considered an application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI), preventing the defendant from pursuing foreclosure proceedings in Russia based on an alleged breach of an arbitration agreement mandating arbitration under the rules of the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC).

The decision provides useful clarification on the interpretation of dispute resolution provisions in suites of contracts, as well as the Court’s jurisdiction to grant ASIs in respect of foreign proceedings.

A brief case note follows. The full judgment can be read here: FH Holding Moscow Ltd. v. AO UniCredit Bank and another [2025] EWHC 3111 (Comm).

The Facts

Fashion House Holding Moscow Ltd (FH), part of an international retail group, borrowed funds from AO UniCredit Bank (AO UniCredit) in 2018 under a Facility Agreement governed by English law, which included an arbitration clause that provided for disputes to be resolved under VIAC rules, with the seat of arbitration in Vienna. As security, FH entered into a Mortgage Agreement with AO UniCredit, governed by Russian law and subject to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Commercial Court (MCC).

When AO UniCredit initiated foreclosure proceedings in Russia alleging an Event of Default had arisen under the Mortgage Agreement, FH argued that the dispute should first be determined by arbitration and sought an ASI from the Court to restrain the Russian proceedings. FH added UniCredit S.p.A. (AO UniCredit’s parent) as a third party to the MCC proceedings and as a Defendant to the Court proceedings.

The Decision

The Court granted judgment in favour of the UniCredit entities on all points, finding that:

• Although the Facility Agreement contained a VIAC arbitration clause, the foreclosure proceedings did not breach that agreement because they were brought under the Mortgage Agreement. The Mortgage Agreement—which was governed by Russian law and provided for disputes to be resolved in the MCC—expressly allowed UniCredit to commence judicial enforcement immediately after an Event of Default, with any disputes, including whether a default had occurred, to be resolved by the MCC.
• The connection to England was too remote for the Court to intervene. Mr Justice Henshaw emphasised that the Court should not intervene in Russian judicial processes where its legitimate interest was tenuous, even in light of concerns about European Union (EU) sanctions or potential harm to the claimant.
• The Court lacked jurisdiction over AO UniCredit, as the relevant arbitration agreement itself was governed by Austrian law. The Court determined that, since the seat of the arbitration was Vienna, it was Austrian law, not English law, that governed the arbitration agreement in the Facility Agreement (notwithstanding English law was expressly stated to be the governing law of the Facility Agreement as a whole).
• There was no real issue against UniCredit S.p.A. that was reasonable for the Court to try, since they were not a claimant in the Russian proceedings (rather, just a third party) and AO UniCredit was the proper party to enforce the security.

This judgment highlights the importance of parties aligning the dispute resolution procedures in their suites of contracts. Notwithstanding that, under English law rules of contractual interpretation, contracts forming part of a suite of documents entered into as part of one commercial transaction must be interpreted together, where parties have agreed apparently inconsistent jurisdiction clauses, the English courts will seek to give effect to those clauses and will not—absent clear language requiring them to do so—apply the dispute resolution procedure from the principal agreement to disputes arising under ancillary agreements.

Our international disputes team is on hand to assist with any queries following this decision.