Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm
EN
← All legal updates
International contracts and court documents illustrating anti-suit injunctions supporting arbitration.

Legal Update

ARBITRATION — FOREIGN TORT CLAIMS, SAME ARBITRATION DEAL: COURT UPHOLDS ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS

2 min read
ArbitrationContract Law
In this update
  1. 01Summary and Facts
  2. 02Legal Issues
  3. 03Court of Appeal’s Findings
  4. 04Practical Implications

Summary and Facts

JP Morgan Securities plc and Others v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61 concerned nine JPM entities under English-law contracts providing for LCIA arbitration in London. After sanctions froze VTB’s balances, VTB brought Russian tort claims against them, including JPM Russia, in the Russian state commercial court, the Arbitrazh Court of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region. The English court granted anti-suit injunctions; VTB appealed.

Legal Issues

  • Whether non-signatory JPM affiliates could invoke the arbitration clause to restrain proceedings against them.

  • Whether pursuing the Russian proceedings was vexatious and oppressive so as to justify an anti-suit injunction.

  • Whether the English court had sufficient interest to interfere with the Russian proceedings, consistently with comity.

Court of Appeal’s Findings

  • The 2017 Terms expressly allowed Affiliates to enforce provisions benefiting them as if parties, including the arbitration clause.

  • Vexation and oppression arose separately only for JPM Russia, which did not invoke the arbitration clause; the other JPM entities invoked their contractual LCIA rights. Its injunction was upheld despite its practical need to submit to Russian jurisdiction.

  • “Sufficient interest” and comity were not separate tests, but two aspects of one enquiry into interference with foreign proceedings.

  • The Russian tort claims sought debts under the arbitration-governed contracts. The appeal was dismissed and the injunctions upheld.

Practical Implications

A broadly drafted arbitration clause may confer enforceable rights on non-signatory affiliates where the terms expressly extend its benefit to “Affiliates”.

  • Sanctions-driven foreign litigation against English-law counterparties and their affiliates may still be restrained where the claims are in substance for sums due under the arbitration-governed contracts.

  • A Russian affiliate’s practical need to submit to local jurisdiction does not preclude protection against vexatious and oppressive proceedings; sufficient interest and comity form one enquiry.