Case Note: Anti-Suit Injunction – JP Morgan block $156 million Russian lawsuits

The Commercial Court, led by Mr Justice Foxton, today gave judgment in favour of various JP Morgan Chase entities (“JP Morgan”) in their challenge to block Russia's VTB Bank (“VTB”) from pursuing claims of $156 million against them in Russia which they argued were designed to circumvent the UK sanctions regime.

Last year, JP Morgan issued applications for anti-suit relief following VTB commencing proceedings in Russia relating to funds frozen by JP Morgan as a result of the sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and UK governments.

On 13 December 2024, Mr Justice Baker granted interim anti-suit injunctions in favour of the Applicants (“the Interim ASIs”) which at the hearing on 13 May 2025, JP Morgan sought to make final and VTB sought to have set aside.

What is an anti-suit injunction?

An anti-suit injunction is a form of relief that restrains a party from initiating or continuing legal proceedings in a certain jurisdiction. Most commonly this is to ensure the jurisdiction designated in a contract or arbitration agreement is upheld. This is known as a contractual application and, in such cases, there is a presumption in the applicant’s favour that an injunction should be granted.

An anti-suit injunction can still be granted where there is no such contractual provision, but in such cases the burden is on the applicant to show that the respondent’s conduct in pursuing the foreign litigation is unconscionable, usually by showing it to be “vexatious or oppressive”. This is known as a non-contractual application for anti-suit relief.

The issues before the Court

JP Morgan relied on various agreements entered into between it and VTB which all contained similar clauses in relation to the resolution of disputes, noting that any dispute was to be resolved in accordance with the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration.

Relying on these agreements, the Commercial Court was satisfied that an anti-suit injunction should be granted in favour of the JP Morgan entities who were signatories to those agreements.

A more difficult question arose in respect of the JP Morgan entities who were not party to the agreements, with the question for the Court being, “when, and if so, in what circumstances, will it be a breach of an arbitration agreement for one party to bring claims against a non-party?”. Mr Justice Foxton considered the relevant authorities and ultimately held that the non-parties were unable to obtain the anti-suit injunctions on a contractual basis.

The Court then turned to consider whether it could be said that VTB’s conduct was vexatious or oppressive and, as such, the injunction should be granted on a non-contractual basis. Considering the relevant legal test as cited in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599, the Court held that VTB Bank’s commencement and pursuit of its claims in Russia were vexatious and oppressive and should be restrained by anti-suit relief, considering the litigation designed to circumvent the arbitration clause provisions, and in doing so seeking to obtain an illegitimate juridical advantage, namely avoiding the laws of England & Wales including the UK sanctions regime. 

Following the successful granting of the anti-suit injunction, VTB is now prohibited from taking any further steps to pursue, prosecute or progress its claims against the various JP Morgan entities in Russia.

Conclusion 

Anti-suit injunctions can be powerful and effective tools for parties engaged in litigation with an international element.

There are many reasons why a party may wish to avoid foreign litigation being brought against it, and a party must often weigh up the benefits and risks of different jurisdictions – whether that is in relation to the legal framework that exists, the relief available, any procedural aspect such as the costs and timeframe involved, or a wide variety of other factors.

An anti-suit injunction can have significant consequences and, as with any injunction, non-compliance will amount to a contempt of Court. A further benefit for an applicant is that, if an anti-suit injunction is ignored and judgment is obtained by the Respondent before a foreign court, such judgment will likely be unenforceable even if it otherwise satisfies the requirements for enforcement in England & Wales. 

This case is particularly interesting in looking at how the test for granting non-contractual anti-suit relief is applied when sanctions issues are at play.

With the expansion of sanctions programmes across numerous jurisdictions in recent years, we are likely to see further developments at the intersection of sanctions, international injunctive remedies and enforcement in the near future.

To read the full decision please see: England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions