Key takeaways
English court jurisdiction clause
Court will grant anti-suit injunction to restrain breach of jurisdiction clause.
Enforcement of arbitration agreements
Court will grant anti-suit injunction to restrain breach of arbitration agreement.
Court support for arbitration
Court will exercise its powers in support of arbitration and to reinforce Tribunal’s orders.
Maire SPA v LLC EuroChem North-West-2 [2026] EWHC 1648 (Comm) (01 July 2026)
This decision is the latest in a series of English Court judgments that relate to the termination of three contracts for the construction of an ammonia production facility in Russia due to economic sanctions being imposed, in 2022, on the individual who controls the Russian company to whom the services were being provided.
Below we summarise the various stages in the litigation and provide links to our articles on the earlier decisions.
This latest decision relates to the guarantees given by the parent company of the contractors under those three contracts, guaranteeing the contractors’ performance under the contracts. The Court has granted a final anti-suit injunction to restrain Russian court proceedings, alleged to be vexatious and oppressive, brought in breach of the English court jurisdiction clause in the guarantees.
The background facts
Maire S.p.A, (Maire), an Italian company, guaranteed performance of three contracts by its wholly owned Italian subsidiary, Tecnimont S.p.A (Tecnimont) and Tecnimont’s 99% owned Russian subsidiary, MT Russia (MTR).
Those three contracts related to the construction of an ammonia production facility (K2 Project) for LLC EuroChem North-West-2 (EuroChem NW2) in Russia. EuroChem NW2 is a Russian fertiliser production company. It is controlled by Mr Melnichenko who was sanctioned under UK and EU sanctions regulations in 2022.
The three contracts (K2 Contracts) were all dated 1 June 2020 and comprised:
an Offshore Engineering and Procurement Contract between Tecnimont and EuroChem NW2 (Offshore EP Contract)
an Onshore Engineering, Local Procurement and Construction Contract between MTR and EuroChem NW2 (Onshore EPC Contract), and
a Coordination and Interface Agreement between Tecnimont, MTR and EuroChem NW2 (CIA).
The K2 Contracts contained materially the same dispute resolution clauses which provided for disputes to be referred to London arbitration under the ICC Rules. The Onshore EPC Contract was subject to Russian law. The other two contracts were governed by English law.
The Contractors’ obligations under the K2 Contracts were secured by performance bonds (Bonds) issued by financial institutions (Banks) and three parent company guarantees dated 10 June 2020 from Maire (Guarantees).
Clause 18.1 of each of the Guarantees provided for English law and the jurisdiction of the English courts. This was exclusive jurisdiction only so far as the Guarantor was concerned. However, clause 18.3 did expressly state that the English courts were the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle any dispute in connection with the Guarantees.
ICC arbitration
The Contractors suspended performance of the K2 Contracts in May 2022 due to trade sanctions imposed in relation to Russia and economic sanctions imposed on Mr Melnichenko, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
This led to a London-seated ICC arbitration between the Contractors and EuroChem NW2 in which EuroChem NW2 filed a counterclaim for damages in excess of Euros 1 billion. A final award in this arbitration is awaited following the final hearing in January 2026.
Proceedings related to the Bonds
EuroChem NW2 brought English Court proceedings against the Banks under the Bonds. Tecnimont was added as a third party to those proceedings. The Court dismissed the claim. See On-Demand Bonds and EU Sanctions | Hill Dickinson.
Russian proceedings
EuroChem NW2 then filed proceedings in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court against the Contractors, bringing claims that reflected its counterclaim in the ICC arbitration.
It also filed two Anti-Arbitration Applications before the St Petersburg Arbitrazh Court, seeking to injunct Tecnimont and MTR from continuing the ICC arbitration and associated English court proceedings, with the threat of statutory penalties if they failed to do so. EuroChem NW2 argued that the ICC arbitration should be disregarded because it would not get justice in that forum due to sanctions.
EuroChem NW2 succeeded in obtaining a Russian court judgment in its favour as well as being granted the Anti-Arbitration Injunctions.
Tribunal’s peremptory orders and supporting court orders
The Contractors sought and obtained various orders from the ICC Tribunal aimed at restraining EuroChem NW2’s breaches of the arbitration agreements and its pursuit of judgment in Russia. When EuroChem NW2 did not comply with most of the Tribunal’s peremptory orders, the Contractors sought enforcement orders from the English Court.
See:
Enforcing Arbitral Tribunal Peremptory Orders | Hill Dickinson
Court of Appeal finds anti-suit injunction vital for arbitration | Hill Dickinson
ICC arbitration -v- Russian court proceedings | Hill Dickinson
When EuroChem NW2 failed to comply with the most recent court order supporting the Tribunal’s peremptory orders, the Contractors issued a contempt of court application.
The Court granted the anti-enforcement relief previously sought by the Contractors under s.42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and made an order enforcing one of the Tribunal’s peremptory orders (PO25) by ordering EuroChem NW2 to withdraw the actions it had taken up to that point to enforce the Russian court judgment had obtained and/or the Russian Anti-Arbitration Injunctions. EuroChem NW2 was also ordered to withdraw enforcement proceedings it had brought in India and Malaysia. EuroChem NW2 did not comply with the court’s order.
Further Russian court proceedings
In March 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of Appeal dismissed the Contractors’ appeal against the Russian court judgment in the Contractors’ favour. The Russian judgment was, therefore, enforceable as a matter of Russian law.
EuroChem NW2 then commenced proceedings against Maire in Russia under the Guarantees. It sought to recover the amounts awarded to it under the Russian judgment (Russian Guarantee Proceedings).
English court proceedings
Maire sought an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain the Russian Guarantee proceedings on the grounds they were vexatious and oppressive. The ASI was granted on an interim basis and EuroChem NW2 was made aware of this, having been served with the interim order. However, it chose not to participate in the proceedings nor to attend the return date hearing.
The Commercial Court decision
The Court decided it had jurisdiction over the claim because the Guarantees were governed by English law and Maire’s claim was made broadly in respect of the Guarantees, even if it was not for breach of contract.
Furthermore, while clause 18 provided for English court jurisdiction to be non-exclusive as far as EuroChem NW2 was concerned, the Court considered that clause 18.3 included an express or implied agreement by Eurochem NW2 that the English Court had jurisdiction to hear any dispute in respect of the Guarantees.
The Court was satisfied that the Russian Guarantee Proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. It was also satisfied that it had sufficient interest in the matter and that it was clearly the most appropriate forum.
Specifically:
The Russian Guarantee Proceedings were brought on the basis of the Russian court judgment, which was obtained in breach of the arbitration agreements and in breach of the Tribunal’s peremptory orders.
EuroChem NW2 sought to pre-empt the conclusion to be reached by the Tribunal by seeking to obtain judgment in Russia.
Arbitration was the forum chosen in the K2 Contracts and agreed to by the parties. EuroChem NW2 was seeking to obtain an illegitimate juridical advantage in Russia because the Russian Court would not allow a foreign party to advance a defence under English law that relies on the application of sanctions against Russia. The Russian courts did not recognise the legal effect of foreign sanctions against Russia because they were contrary to Russian public policy.
There were no sufficient considerations of comity to prevent the granting of the ASI. Pursuing proceedings that were in breach of English arbitration agreements and English court orders was contrary to English public policy.
The Court, therefore, granted the final ASI.
Comment
The dispute illustrates the increasing frequency with which Russian defendants are commencing Russian Arbitrazh Court proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements and foreign jurisdiction clauses in order to sidestep the impact of international sanctions.
The English courts continue to take a robust approach to such actions and will grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief as appropriate and necessary.
Find out more about our International Arbitration expertise or contact us today to discuss how we can support you.
