Overview
Introduction
In January 2025, the English High Court granted a rare anti-enforcement injunction (AEI) restraining worldwide enforcement of a series of Russian judgments (Judgments) against two Google entities (Google Decision). Apart from the "other-worldly" sums involved – surpassing "the estimated GDP of all the economies in the world" – the AEI was justified on unusual terms, primarily on the novel basis that any attempt to restrain Russian proceedings with an anti-suit injunction (ASI) would have been "futile."
Google v Tsargrad Media [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm)
Main Takeaway
English courts have the authority to issue AEIs to restrain the enforcement of foreign judgments resulting from parallel proceedings brought in breach of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. However, in practice, these injunctions are rarely granted once parallel proceedings have reached a judgment, particularly if the innocent party had the opportunity to seek at an earlier stage appropriate anti-suit relief against the pursuit of those proceedings.
The Google Decision is exceptional as the English High Court granted an AEI in relation to the Judgments, even though no earlier application for ASIs had been made. The court was persuaded that any such application would have had "no impact" on the pursuit of underlying Russian proceedings. The decision highlights AEIs as a potential alternative remedy to mitigate the unpredictable consequences of parallel proceedings and of the resulting judgments that cannot be restrained by ordinary anti-suit relief.
Anti-Enforcement Injunctions
Purpose of AEIs
In English law, exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration clauses carry "the negative promise not to sue in a foreign jurisdiction."[1] If a counterparty amenable to the English courts’ jurisdiction[2] brings other proceedings in breach thereof, the innocent party’s ordinary remedy would be an ASI to restrain the former’s pursuit of such parallel proceedings.[3] Where the recalcitrant counterparty has assets or personnel in the jurisdiction, non-compliance with the injunction sounds in contempt and can entail penal consequences, including committal to prison.[4]
Occasionally, parallel proceedings are not restrained (by ASI or otherwise) and result in judgment. The innocent party's last resort for injunctive relief may be to persuade the English courts that it would be instead "just and convenient"[5] to grant an AEI against enforcement of the resulting judgment. As first stated almost a century ago in Ellerman Lines v Read:
"… If the English Court finds that a person subject to its jurisdiction has committed a breach of covenant … and that it would be inequitable on his part to seek to enforce a judgment obtained in breach of such obligations, it will restrain him …".[6]
An AEI is likely unnecessary to restrain enforcement of a resulting judgment within the UK (which is separately circumscribed by statute),[7] but may be sought "to prevent reliance abroad on, or compliance with, [such a] judgment."[8] In Ellerman Lines, for instance, an AEI was granted to restrain "in Turkey or elsewhere out of England" enforcement of a Turkish judgment resulting from breach of a London arbitration clause.[9]
AEIs in Practice
Like ASIs, the grant of AEIs is ultimately a matter of discretion,[10] and failure to apply promptly can amount to a strong reason for refusal.[11] While they are technically directed at a counterparty in personam, English courts are cautious with AEIs, as the remedy will, if only indirectly, involve an extent of "interference" with another court’s proceedings:[12] "it is not for an English injunction to pre-empt a decision based on the local law."[13]
In practice, therefore, English courts rarely grant anti-enforcement relief once parallel proceedings have resulted in judgment.[14] Those few successful applications ex post facto did not prevail "simply on the basis that the proceedings sought to be restrained were commenced in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause."[15] They were exceptional in other respects, by such reasons as the resulting judgment being: (i) tainted with perjury;[16] (ii) compromised by an agreement to re-litigate the dispute "afresh";[17] or (iii) an "exorbitant" intrusion upon the English courts' enforcement jurisdiction over property in its territory.[18]
The Ecobank Decision
These exceptional cases may be contrasted with the Court of Appeal's influential Ecobank v Tanoh decision. In that instance, the innocent party had not sought an ASI against its counterparty's pursuit of Togolese and Ivorian proceedings in breach of a London arbitration clause, despite raising a jurisdictional objection while participating in both proceedings.
The court declined an AEI against worldwide enforcement of the resulting judgments, noting in particular the failure to seek an ASI "for no good reason" as well as the time and resources (including those of other courts) thereby thrown away.[19] The innocent party vexed by parallel proceedings should instead have applied for injunctive relief as promptly and as early as possible, rather than seeking such relief ex post facto after those proceedings have resulted in a judgment:
"… The court is, in an appropriate case, entitled to be reluctant to use its coercive powers to restrain that which the applicant has in fact allowed to continue without any application for relief for some time … [L]ittle useful purpose is likely to be served by the party who claims to be entitled to an injunction holding back from claiming it …".[20]
Ecobank's analysis has been affirmed by subsequent English decisions.[21] It has also been adopted in common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia,[22] and was recently cited in the Google Decision.
The Google Decision
YouTube Channel Closures
Three Russian entities – (i) Tsargrad Media (media company owned by a Russian oligarch; Tsargrad); (ii) TV-Novosti (owner of the RT network); and (iii) Fond Pravoslavnogo Televideniya (TV channel operator associated with the Moscow Patriarchate; FPT) (Russian Parties) – operated YouTube channels under terms of service set by Google. Tsargrad and TV-Novosti also had monetization agreements with Google Ireland.
The various contracts between Google or Google Ireland (Google Parties) and the Russian Parties were governed by English law, and contained (or were found to contain) English exclusive jurisdiction or London arbitration clauses.[23]
Over the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Tsargrad's owner and TV-Novosti became subject to Western sanctions. In this context, the Google Parties terminated Tsargrad's YouTube channel and ceased advertising services, citing the need to "compl[y] with US sanctions laws and Google’s policies." TV-Novosti’s and FPT's channels would be blocked or terminated on similar grounds.
Proceedings Against Google
Starting in August 2020, and disregarding the English jurisdiction and London arbitration clauses in place, the Russian Parties commenced proceedings against the Google Parties in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court (MAC), seeking reinstatement of their YouTube channels.
Despite the Google Parties' objections, the MAC upheld jurisdiction under controversial 'anti-sanctions' provisions in Russia's Arbitrazh Procedural Code (Anti-Sanctions Law). Article 248 therein, in particular, purported: (i) to confer upon Russian courts (including the MAC) "exclusive jurisdiction" over cases involving a sanctioned party; and (ii) to deem in such cases jurisdiction agreements in favor of “a foreign court or international commercial arbitration … unenforceable.”
The MAC ruled in favor of the Russian Parties and ordered their YouTube channels’ reinstatement. Significantly, the Russian Parties sought, and the MAC imposed, "unprecedented" 'astreinte' penalties against the Google Parties, accruing at 100,000 rubles daily and subject to "weekly doubling." The Google Parties maintained their jurisdictional objections and appealed the Judgments, but to no ultimate avail.
Enforcement Against Google
In March 2022, Russian authorities seized for Tsargrad £51 million of assets from Google’s (now insolvent) Russian subsidiary. Subsequently, in late 2023, the Russian Parties began coordinating enforcement of the Judgments in around a dozen jurisdictions worldwide.
However, the Google Parties were not served with process of enforcement proceedings outside Russia until early August 2024. Later that month, they responded with English proceedings for interim AEIs against worldwide enforcement of the Judgments (including the astreintes) "in any jurisdiction outside Russia," which was made final in January 2025.[24] By that time, those penalties had reportedly long surpassed "the estimated GDP of all the economics in the world."
Justification for AEI
Facts underlying the Google Decision resembled Ecobank in key respects – breach of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses; no applications upfront for ASIs; participation in parallel proceedings under protest; and ex post facto applications for anti-enforcement relief. Unlike Ecobank, however, the English High Court granted the Google Parties an AEI. It justified this primarily on the novel basis that any earlier application for ASIs against the Russian Parties would have been "futile":
“… Article 248.1 [of the Anti-Sanctions Law] was introduced for the specific purpose of enabling s[anctioned] persons to choose to litigate in the Russian courts even if they have contracted to litigate or arbitrate elsewhere. It was, in my view, reasonable for the [Google Parties] to believe that in these circumstances, [ASIs] would have no impact on the pursuit by the [Russian Parties], in their home courts in Russia, of their claims against the [Google Parties]…”.[25]
In so deciding, it accepted the Google Parties' Russian law evidence, which opined precisely that (i) the Anti-Sanctions Law in effect authorized the MAC to "explicitly disregard[]" non-Russian jurisdiction and arbitration clauses; and that (ii) enforcement of an ASI in a sanctions-related dispute was "likely to be seen by the Russian Courts as contrary to public policy." In this context, an AEI ex post facto was further justified as the Google Parties "acted with appropriate speed" after being served with enforcement proceedings worldwide relatively late.
Significance and Comment
The Google Decision showcases worldwide AEIs as an alternative remedy to mitigate the unpredictable consequences of parallel proceedings unrestrained (and, indeed, unrestrainable) by ordinary anti-suit relief. Building upon an uncommon area of law, it highlights the English courts' pragmatic approach to challenges like the Anti-Sanctions Laws, which have exacerbated the fragmentation of international disputes (including, notably, UniCredit v RusChemAlliance, which reached the UK Supreme Court).[26]
Moreover, it will be interesting to see the extent to which further AEIs will be granted on the same basis – i.e., that anti-suit relief would have been 'futile' – potentially beyond disputes affected by the Anti-Sanctions Laws.
As the Court of Appeal observed in Phillip Alexander Securities v Bamberger, an ASI against a counterparty without assets or personnel in the English courts’ jurisdiction is "unlikely to be enforceable except by the foreign court recognising and giving effect to the injunction."[27] Where such a counterparty pursues parallel proceedings in breach of a jurisdiction or arbitration clause, an ASI will thus be presumptively 'futile' to restrain those proceedings, as there is prima facie no certainty that the other court so seized will enforce it. In Phillip Alexander Securities, for instance, the German courts refused to permit cross-border service of an ASI as "interference with the sovereignty of Germany,"[28] which echoes the "public policy" concern mooted in the Google Decision.
Viewed in this light, AEIs could conceivably be reformed into a more effective response against parallel proceedings and resulting judgments flowing from a breach of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. It will fall to future English courts to decide whether to develop this remedy accordingly, or to otherwise confine it to circumstances where the Anti-Sanctions Laws or comparable regimes are engaged.
[1] Magomedov v PJSC Transneft [2024] EWHC 1176 (Comm) [62]; see also Turnver v Grovit [2001] UKHL 65 [25] and AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35 [48].
[2] A party may be amenable to the English courts’ jurisdiction by reason of, among other grounds, its presence in England and Wales (Colt Industries Inc. v. Sarlie [1966] 1 W.L.R. 440; Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein [1972] 2 QB 283); an English jurisdiction clause (Pantheon International Advisors Ltd v. Co-Diagnostics Inc [2023] EWHC 1984 (KB)); or an arbitration clause governed by English law and/or stipulating an English seat (AES Ust-Kamenogorsk [50]-[51]).
[3] British Airways v Laker Airways [1984] UKHL 7 [16].
[4] See, e.g., SQD v QYP [2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm) [103], and Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd v Systems Equipment Services SARL [2020] EWHC 1384 (Comm).
[5] Senior Courts Act 1971, s37(1).
[6] Ellerman Lines v Read [1928] 2 KB 146, 155.
[7] Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s32.
[8] Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2008] EWCA Civ 625 [94] (emphasis added).
[9] Ellerman Lines, 148.
[10] Bank St Petersburg v Arkhangelsky [2014] EWCA Civ 593 [39]; see also The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87, 96 with respect to ASIs.
[11] E-Star Shipping v Delta Corp Shipping [2022] EWHC 3165 (Comm) [51].
[12] Mamidoil-Jetoil v Okta Crude Refinery [2002] EWHC 2210 (Comm) [205]; see also Highland Crusader Offshore Partners v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] EWCA Civ 725 [50] with respect to ASIs.
[13] The Eastern Trader [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 585, 602; see also Akai v People's Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 90.
[14] Masri [94].
[15] Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh [2015] EWCA Civ 1309 [118].
[16] Ellerman Lines (an AEI was granted to restrain worldwide enforcement of a Turkish judgment obtained through perjury).
[17] Bank St Petersburg (an AEI was granted to restrain Bulgarian and French proceedings to enforce Russian judgments from 2009 and 2010, as the parties subsequently in 2011 compromised to “start afresh” for the English courts to re-hear the substantive dispute).
[18] SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599 (an AEI was granted to restrain enforcement of a US judgment to the extent that it trespassed upon the English courts’ subject matter jurisdiction by targeting property in England, notably by purporting to garnishee a UK company’s assets receivable). This decision is further exceptional as the underlying dispute did not engage any jurisdiction or arbitration clause.
[19] Ecobank [123], [126], and [132]-[134].
[20] Ecobank [128].
[21] See, e.g., SAS Institute.
[22] Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises (ENE) v Bank of China Ltd [2016] HKCA 205; Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] SGCA 10; Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley (No 2) [2023] QSC 215.
[23] The English High Court considered separate arguments as to whether the English jurisdiction clause in question was exclusive and whether the Google Parties submitted to Russian jurisdiction: see Google Decision [85]-[100].
[24] The Google Parties also sought ancillary relief in the form of anti-anti-suit injunctions with a view to pre-empting any application by the Russian Parties for anti-suit relief from the Russian courts: see Google v Tsargrad Media [2024] EWHC 2212 (Comm) [19], and Google Decision [116].
[25] Emphasis added.
[26] UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30.
[27] Phillip Alexander Securities v Bamberger [1997] I.L.Pr 73, 117.
[28] Re the Enforcement of An English Anti-Suit Injunction [1997] I.L.Pr 320, 324
