Mr Magomedov (a Russian national) and Port Petrovsk (a BVI company holding an interest in certain Russian commercial ports) commenced proceedings in England against Transneft (a Russian state-owned enterprise) and a number of other defendants for non-contractual claims in unlawful means conspiracy. Transneft commenced proceedings in the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court in Moscow seeking anti-suit injunctions (the Russian ASI Proceedings) against Magomedov and Port Petrovsk and subsequently issued an application in the English proceedings challenging the jurisdiction of the English High Court.

The English Court granted the Claimants an interim anti-anti-suit injunction (the English AASI) restraining Transneft from proceeding with the Russian ASI Proceedings until the return date of the English AASI, and requiring Transneft to stay and/or adjourn the Russian ASI Proceedings pending the determination of its jurisdictional challenge by the English Court. The Moscow Court refused to adjourn the Russian ASI Proceedings and granted a permanent anti-suit injunction (the Russian ASIs) against Magomedov and Port Petrovsk, and an order of damages of US$7.5 billion in favour of Transneft in the event that Magomedov and Port Petrovsk failed to comply with the Russian ASIs.

In seeking the continuation of the English AASI notwithstanding the Russian ASIs, the Claimants sought a ruling that they were in principle entitled to an anti-anti-suit injunction, which would allow them to obtain ancillary relief such as an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent Transneft from enforcing the Russian ASIs, or an anti-reliance injunction to prevent Transneft from relying in the Russian proceedings on any actions by the Claimants in the English proceedings.

Distinguishing cases concerning anti-suit injunctions where there is generally a need to show that England is the natural or more appropriate forum, in particular where there is no express contractual agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English Court, Mr Justice Bright held that in considering whether to grant an anti-anti-suit injunction or other related relief on an interim basis, it was not necessary for the grant of such injunction or associated relief that the English Court should have first concluded that England is the natural forum of the dispute. The Judge held that:

1. The English Court must have the power to decide any challenge to its jurisdiction.
2. Pursuant to section 24 of the Civil and Jurisdiction Judgments Act 1982, the Court has the power to grant interim relief pending the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. Where a jurisdictional challenge is afoot, a foreign anti-suit injunction would prevent the English Court from ever deciding on the issue of jurisdiction or forum. In an appropriate case, the Court must be able to grant an interim anti-anti-suit injunction, to last until the Court is able to decide on any jurisdictional challenge. This is particularly important where not to do so would expose the Claimants to an anti-suit injunction granted in a foreign jurisdiction with penal consequences, which is intended to impede the proper determination of the jurisdictional challenge in the English Court.
4. The Court has the power to grant an anti-anti-suit injunction of a limited duration, the purpose of which is to ensure that parallel anti-suit proceedings in a foreign court does not get an advantage over the English proceedings, and to ensure that any challenge to the jurisdiction of the English Court is not used unconscionably as a way of delaying matters and obtaining an unfair advantage.

This case is one of the few English authorities involving anti-anti-suit injunctions and provides useful guidance to Courts in other common law jurisdictions on the appropriate circumstances where the Court may exercise its discretion to grant such relief in a non-contractual claim and where the relevant claimants are not resident or domiciled in its jurisdiction.