Back to all insights
Senior Associate, Dispute Resolution
Back to all insights
The problem: a multiplicity of legal proceedings in different jurisdictions
In offshore commercial litigation, a dispute often involves parties and entities from several jurisdictions (both offshore and onshore) and in this context, the use of litigation in one jurisdiction may be a tactic to undermine, exhaust or otherwise place pressure upon the opposing side in litigation which is in another jurisdiction. This dynamic is evident especially where, for one reason or another, one side of the litigation is able to pursue legal proceedings in a particular jurisdiction, while the other side may not be well-placed to defend these, for example due to sanctions, lack of sufficient funding, or some other factor.
An effective countermeasure to prevent a party from carrying on with vexatious or oppressive legal proceedings in another jurisdiction is an anti-suit injunction. In simple terms, this is usually an injunction granted in one jurisdiction, which restrains a party from commencing or carrying on legal proceedings in another jurisdiction. The essential basis required to obtain an anti-suit injunction is that the proceedings in the other jurisdiction are in some manner oppressive or vexatious, or more generally operate against the interests of justice – in other words, if an anti-suit injunction is sought in Guernsey against foreign proceedings, there must be some legitimate basis to ask the Guernsey court to order that the foreign proceedings must not continue until the Guernsey proceedings have been finally determined. Guernsey ends to follow the legal approach taken by the courts in England in terms of legal requirements for such an injunction. This measure, if successful, prevents the other side from running parallel lines of litigation in different jurisdictions, which can otherwise exhaust a litigant’s war chest, lead to issues of a res judicata and create delay and confusion in the dispute generally.
Recent English decision refusing an anti-suit injunction: Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and ors [2025] EWCA Civ 369
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in England Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and ors [2025] EWCA Civ 369 highlights the use of anti-suit injunctions in an arbitration and sanctions context, as well as the need to place all relevant factual information before the court in order to obtain this injunctive relief. This matter involved the applicant seeking an anti-suit injunction in relation to certain proceedings in Russia, on the basis that the Russian proceedings violated an arbitration agreement and also that the Russian proceedings amounted to a circumvention of UK sanctions against Russia. Whilst the lower courts hearing the matter before the Court of Appeal granted the anti-suit injunction as requested, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision on the basis that the claims in the Russian proceedings did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and furthermore that the circumvention of sanctions had not been sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant on a factual basis. The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for full and frank disclosure by the applicant of all relevant facts and circumstances, quoting at para 16 with approval the dictum of Lord Bingham in Donahue v Armco Inc:
“The grant of an anti-suit injunction, as of any other injunction, involves an exercise of discretion by the court. To exercise its discretion reliably and rationally, the court must have the fullest possible knowledge and understanding of all the circumstances relevant to the litigation and the parties to it. This is particularly true of an anti-suit injunction because, as explained below, the likely effect of an injunction on proceedings in the foreign and the domestic forum and on parties not bound by the injunction may be matters very material to the decision whether an injunction should be granted or not.”
This underscores the importance of full and frank disclosure by the applicant, in seeking the unusual (and somewhat drastic) remedy of an anti-suit injunction. A court, on the basis of comity, will be slow to order that another court may not proceed to hear a matter placed before it – there must be full disclosure of all relevant facts and circumstances so as to allow the court to make a fair determination, which will also be respected by the other court.
The next level – anti-anti-suit injunctions in Guernsey
A further level of anti-suit proceedings is also possible – namely, the anti-anti-suit injunction. This is an injunction sought against anti-injunction proceedings elsewhere, therefore an anti-anti-suit injunction. In order to be successful in obtaining this relief, an applicant must show that the anti-suit injunction in the foreign court is essentially vexatious or oppressive, and therefore the court hearing the anti-anti-suit injunction should restrain the foreign anti-suit inunction. In the Guernsey Court of Appeal case of Carlyle Capital Corporation (in liquidation) and others v Conway and others (handed down on 27 April 2012), the Court of Appeal found unsurprisingly that the same principles which apply to the granting of an anti-suit injunction will be applied when determining whether to grant an anti-anti-suit injunction.
The Guernsey approach to these sorts of injunctions is squarely based on the interests of justice. In the Carlyle case (referred to above), the Guernsey Court of Appeal quoted with approval the principles set out in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871), namely that the jurisdiction is to be exercised when the ends of justice require it and that part of this analysis is preventing unnecessary waste of judicial time and of legal costs (Cf the multiplicity of legal proceedings and parallel litigation point made above). Importantly, the court recognised in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatatiale that the concept of vexatious or oppressive proceedings is a flexible one, which is fact sensitive. Once again, the court must exercise this jurisdiction with great care, as if successful the injunction will operate to prevent the foreign injunction’s effect, and interfering with the orders of a foreign court must always be done with great care and respect for the principle of international comity.
This is particularly so in a sanctions context, where there must be clear evidence of sanctions contravention being engendered by the foreign proceedings. We have had experience of matters (in an unreported case) where an anti-anti-suit injunction was granted by the Guernsey Royal Court, against anti-suit proceedings in Russia where the core contention of the party seeking the Guernsey anti-anti-suit injunction was that the Russian injunction was oppressive, given that the result of that injunction was that Guernsey proceedings would have to be halted, whilst the claims in question could not be brought in Russia or anywhere else. This amounted therefore to a denial of justice which was oppressive and vexatious. Interestingly, and somewhat surprisingly (given the political context), the Russian Commercial Court respected the Guernsey anti-anti-suit injunction, and halted its own proceedings in light of it. This tends to demonstrate that comity between international courts is an influential factor, especially where the foreign court considers the anti-anti-suit injunction to have been granted on a cogent and plausible basis, with all the relevant facts fully disclosed to the court granting it.
How can we help?
Abt has extensive experience dealing with anti-suit injunctions in Guernsey, whether seeking the injunction or opposing such relief, and including in relation to the much rarer anti-anti-suit injunction scenario, and in the context of Russian sanctions. Should you require any advice on any aspect relating to injunctions of this sort in Guernsey, please contact Advocates Clare Tee, Jeremy Le Tissier or Senior Associate Nick Taitz.
