Case Digest No. 25 · Arbitration
Enforcing peremptory anti-suit orders under section 42
LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA [2026] EWCA Civ 5
The Court of Appeal held that the court has power under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a tribunal’s peremptory order for anti-suit relief.
Court of Appeal
[2026] EWCA Civ 5
March 2026
Decision at a glance
The question, answer and consequence.
- Legal question
- The central issue was enforcing peremptory anti-suit orders under section 42.
- Court's answer
- The Court of Appeal held that the court has power under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a tribunal’s peremptory order for anti-suit relief.
- Practical consequence
- The decision explains how section 42 can support a tribunal's peremptory anti-suit order. It helps parties coordinate arbitral and court remedies when parallel foreign proceedings threaten the agreed arbitral process.
Factual background
LLC Eurochem North-West-2 (the Appellant) engaged Tecnimont S.P.A (the First Respondent) and MT Russia LLC (the Second Respondent), a company majority owned by the First Respondent, as engineering procurement and construction contractors (the Contractors) in Russia. The Contractors contended that export controls and refusals from vendors and service providers to supply items for use in Russia precluded them from obtaining numerous items that were necessary to perform their contractual services. The Contractors also maintained that as the Appellant was owned by a designated person under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and subjected to EU sanctions, they could not perform the contract in any manner that would involve the First Respondent providing economic resources to the Appellant in any event. The Appellant disputed the validity of the Contractors’ suspension of performance and purported to terminate the contracts on account of the Contractors’ alleged breach of contract. ISSUE Whether as a matter of law the court has power under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to make an order enforcing a peremptory order of an arbitration tribunal granting anti-suit relief.
Issue
The central issue was enforcing peremptory anti-suit orders under section 42.
Procedural history and reasoning
Claims were brought against the Appellant by the Contractors in a London seated tribunal. The Tribunal made peremptory orders against the Appellant granting interim anti-suit relief to restrain and/or remedy proceedings brought by the Appellant in Russia in breach of the arbitration agreement. FIRST RUSSIAN PROCEEDINGS The Appellant’s immediate parent company commenced proceedings against the Contractors, naming the Appellant as a third party, in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court to claim the sums counterclaimed by the Appellant in the arbitration. SECOND RUSSIAN PROCEEDINGS The Appellant filed further proceedings seeking recovery of the sums counterclaimed in the arbitration against the Second Respondent in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court, to which the First Respondent was later added as a co-defendant.
ANTI-ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS The Appellant filed two sets of proceedings in the St Petersburg Arbitrazh Court, one against the First Respondent and one against the Second Respondent, seeking injunctions to prevent the Contractors from continuing the arbitration proceedings or instituting similar foreign proceedings. LONDON ARBITRATION The Tribunal concluded that the Second Russian Proceedings and the Anti-Arbitration Proceedings constituted flagrant breaches of the arbitration agreements between the parties. s42 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION Butcher J granted anti-suit relief in the form which the tribunal had peremptorily ordered pursuant to s.42 Arbitration Act 1996. COURT OF APPEAL The sole ground of appeal by the Appellant was that, although it accepted that the Tribunal had power to make the original non- peremptory anti-suit orders, nevertheless the court had no power to enforce peremptory orders for anti-suit relief under s.42. THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL.
ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 42 Enforcement of peremptory orders of tribunal or emergency arbitrator (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court may make an order requiring a party to comply with a peremptory order made by the tribunal or (as the case may be) the emergency arbitrator. (2) An application for an order under this section may be made - (a) by the tribunal or the emergency arbitrator (upon notices to the parties), (b) by a party to the arbitration proceedings with the permission of the tribunal or the emergency arbitrator (and upon notices to the other parties), or (c) where the parties have agreed that the powers of the court under this section shall be available. (3) The court shall not act unless it is satisfied that the applicant has exhausted any available arbitral process in respect of failure to comply with the peremptory order. (4) No order shall be made under this section unless the court is satisfied that the person to whom the peremptory order was directed has failed to comply with it within the time prescribed in the order or, if no time was prescribed, within a reasonable time.
Decision and key points
The Court of Appeal held that the court has power under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a tribunal’s peremptory order for anti-suit relief.
- The court has power under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a tribunal’s peremptory order for anti-suit relief.
- The relief was capable of being necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration.
Why this decision matters
The decision explains how section 42 can support a tribunal's peremptory anti-suit order. It helps parties coordinate arbitral and court remedies when parallel foreign proceedings threaten the agreed arbitral process.
Particularly relevant to: Arbitration practitioners, international businesses and cross-border disputes teams.