{"id":291593,"date":"2026-07-10T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291593"},"modified":"2026-07-24T12:33:34","modified_gmt":"2026-07-24T10:33:34","slug":"no-anti-suit-relief-english-court-gives-effect-to-parallel-enforcement-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/10\/no-anti-suit-relief-english-court-gives-effect-to-parallel-enforcement-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"No Anti-Suit Relief: English Court Gives Effect to Parallel Enforcement Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank &amp; another<\/em> [2026] EWCA Civ 468<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Margarita Ilieva, <\/strong>LL.M. Candidate, <strong>University of Paris Nanterre<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-2dc9f01f atbs-tabs-012e1490 atbs-tabs-c95d372c atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1 atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-2dc9f01f\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">judgment<\/a> delivered in April 2026, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in <em>FH Holding Moscow Limited v AO UniCredit Bank and UniCredit S.p.A<\/em>. considered whether Moscow enforcement proceedings had been commenced in breach of a VIAC arbitration agreement, the interaction between competing dispute resolution clauses contained in interconnected financing agreements, and the jurisdiction of the English courts over a foreign defendant in anti-suit injunction proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Claimant, FH Holding Moscow (\u201c<strong>FHM<\/strong>\u201d), was a Cypriot company operating principally in Russia. The Respondents were AO UniCredit Bank (\u201c<strong>AO<\/strong>\u201d), a Russian bank, and its Italian parent company, UniCredit S.p.A. (\u201c<strong>SPA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 2 November 2018, the parties entered into a Facility Agreement comprising euro- and rouble-denominated loan facilities advanced by SPA and AO respectively, with AO also acting as Facility Agent. The agreement was governed by English law and contained a VIAC arbitration clause (clause 9) providing for arbitration seated in Vienna in respect of disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement, including non-contractual obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Facility Agreement formed part of a broader financing structure that included a Mortgage Agreement dated 6 November 2018 under which FHM granted security over real estate assets located in and around Moscow. The Mortgage Agreement was governed by Russian law and provided for enforcement proceedings before the Commercial Court of Moscow (clause 9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the introduction of Russian counter-sanctions, FHM contended that repayment of the euro-denominated facility had become unlawful. It maintained that it continued servicing the debt through rouble payments, disputed the occurrence of any Event of Default, and relied on alleged restructuring arrangements discussed between the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 24 March 2025, AO commenced foreclosure proceedings before the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region, alleging that FHM\u2019s failure to make payments under the Facility Agreement had triggered an Event of Default. FHM disputed the alleged default and argued that the dispute fell within the scope of the VIAC arbitration clause. It subsequently joined SPA to the Russian proceedings as a third party and further alleged that AO had commenced those proceedings under SPA\u2019s direction, such that both entities were acting in breach of the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 7 August 2025, FHM applied for an anti-suit injunction against both banks before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. At a without notice hearing, permission to serve AO out of the jurisdiction was granted under several jurisdictional gateways, including the \u201cnecessary and proper party\u201d gateway and CPR PD 6B para. 3.1(6)(c), concerning claims brought \u201cin respect of\u201d an English-law contract. However, it was subsequently accepted that jurisdiction could not be founded on the arbitration agreement itself, since the arbitration clause was governed by Austrian rather than English law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The matter subsequently came before the High Court together with AO\u2019s jurisdiction challenge and SPA\u2019s application for summary judgment. The Court held that FHM had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently high probability that the Moscow proceedings were brought in breach of the arbitration agreement, rejected the application for anti-suit relief on vexation and oppression grounds, granted summary judgment in favour of SPA, and concluded that the English courts lacked jurisdiction over AO. Accordingly, permission to serve proceedings on AO outside the jurisdiction was set aside, while the claim against SPA was dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">FHM appealed the High Court\u2019s decision on four principal grounds: (1) that clause 9 of the Mortgage Agreement had been wrongly interpreted and that the Moscow proceedings fell within the scope of the VIAC arbitration agreement contained in the Facility Agreement; (2) that the English courts possessed jurisdiction over AO because the anti-suit injunction claim was \u201cin respect of\u201d the English-law Facility Agreement; (3) that AO could properly be joined through the \u201cnecessary and proper party\u201d gateway linked to the claim against SPA; and (4) that anti-suit relief had wrongly been refused on discretionary grounds, contrary to the principle affirmed in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-renaissance-securities-cyprus-limited-v-chlodwig-enterprises-limited-adorabella-limited-gekolina-investments-ltd-dubhe-holdings-limited-owl-nebula-enterprises-limited-and-perpecia-limited-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-friday-3rd-november-2023\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises<\/a><\/em> that such relief will ordinarily be granted where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement absent strong reasons to the contrary. FHM did not, however, pursue its alternative case that the Moscow proceedings were vexatious or oppressive.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In response, AO argued that FHM had relied on the wrong procedural route for serving proceedings abroad, contending that arbitration claims are governed exclusively by CPR 62.5 rather than the general jurisdictional gateways in CPR PD 6B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although the appeal was expedited, the Moscow court delivered judgment shortly before the hearing. It held that the dispute fell within clause 21 of the Mortgage Agreement, that AO could enforce the security without prior determination by a VIAC tribunal, and that an Event of Default had occurred. However, AO\u2019s claim was dismissed because it had not obtained the regulatory approvals required under Russian law before foreclosure. The Court of Appeal nevertheless considered the dispute to remain live, since AO could still appeal or recommence proceedings after obtaining the necessary approvals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Are the Moscow proceedings in breach of the arbitration clause in the Facility<\/strong> <strong>Agreement?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>High Court Reasoning Affirmed by the Court of Appeal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal endorsed the High Court\u2019s conclusion that the Moscow proceedings were not brought in breach of the VIAC arbitration agreement. It agreed that disputes concerning an Event of Default and the amount outstanding could arise simultaneously under both the Facility Agreement and the Mortgage Agreement. The incorporation into the Mortgage Agreement of definitions and Events of Default from the Facility Agreement did not make such disputes exclusively arbitral but reflected the parties\u2019 intention that overlapping dispute resolution mechanisms could operate within interconnected agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further held that the Mortgage Agreement, properly construed, permitted immediate judicial enforcement upon the occurrence of an Event of Default without requiring prior arbitral determination. The agreement, therefore, established an autonomous enforcement mechanism enabling the Moscow Commercial Court to determine issues of default within the foreclosure proceedings themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the Court considered that FHM\u2019s interpretation deprived the Mortgage Agreement\u2019s enforcement provisions of meaningful effect, since they expressly contemplated enforcement without the need for any prior judicial or state authorisation. This conclusion was reinforced by evidence that no separate court permission was ordinarily required before foreclosure proceedings could be commenced in Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Court rejected the submission that this interpretation rendered the arbitration agreement ineffective. Disputes concerning the facilities could still arise independently of mortgage enforcement proceedings and therefore remain subject to VIAC arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Additional Considerations Identified by the Court of Appeal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal also identified several further considerations supporting that conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, the Court observed that FHM\u2019s interpretation had largely been advanced through English law principles, notwithstanding that the dispute concerned a Russian law Mortgage Agreement containing a Russian jurisdiction clause and an arbitration agreement governed by Austrian law. The Court suggested that the exclusive application of English interpretative principles in such circumstances was not self-evidently appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Secondly, the Court noted that the Moscow Commercial Court had already determined that enforcement could proceed without prior arbitral determination of an Event of Default. Hence, accepting FHM\u2019s submissions would require the English courts to conclude that the Russian court had incorrectly interpreted a Russian law agreement, which the Court considered difficult to justify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thirdly, the Court accepted that some procedural fragmentation was unavoidable under either interpretation. However, whereas the Respondents\u2019 construction merely permitted parallel proceedings, FHM\u2019s approach would make duplication inevitable by requiring a prior arbitral award before mortgage enforcement could commence. The Court regarded this as commercially artificial, particularly given the importance of prompt enforcement measures following default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Court held that the meaning of the expression \u201carbitration court\u201d was not determinative. In either case, the provision supported the conclusion that enforcement proceedings could commence immediately, with disputes resolved within those proceedings rather than through a prior arbitral process. The Court therefore refused FHM\u2019s attempt to adduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding the term\u2019s meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Other Issues&nbsp;<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Having dismissed the appeal on the first ground, the Court of Appeal considered it unnecessary to decide the remaining jurisdictional issues. Nevertheless, it made several observations about the circumstances in which English courts may assume jurisdiction in support of foreign arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Referring to <em>UniCredit v RusChemAlliance<\/em>, the Court noted that previous cases had treated the arbitration agreement itself, rather than the underlying commercial contract, as the relevant contract for the purposes of the \u201ccontract gateway\u201d. Although the Court expressed no concluded view, it observed that a claim may, in principle, relate to more than one contract simultaneously. It also recognised that accepting FHM\u2019s argument could considerably broaden the circumstances in which English courts may exercise jurisdiction where the underlying contract is governed by English law but the arbitration agreement is governed by foreign law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also considered whether the procedural rules governing arbitration claims (CPR 62.5) provide the exclusive basis for serving proceedings outside the jurisdiction, thereby excluding reliance on the ordinary jurisdictional gateways in CPR Part 6 and Practice Direction 6B. The Court observed that this argument had \u201cconsiderable force\u201d, particularly because the arbitration rules contain their own specific provisions concerning service abroad. However, it regarded itself as constrained by earlier Supreme Court authority, which had proceeded on the assumption that the ordinary gateways remain available in arbitration-related claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical significance of the issue was substantial. If the ordinary jurisdictional gateways were unavailable, parties seeking anti-suit injunctions in support of foreign-seated arbitrations would often be unable to bring proceedings before the English courts at all. Although the Court declined to decide the issue conclusively, it suggested that clarification of the procedural framework may ultimately be required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal\u2019s decision in <em>FH Holding Moscow v AO UniCredit Bank<\/em> confirms and develops the principles governing competing dispute resolution clauses in interconnected agreements. By upholding the High Court\u2019s conclusion that the Mortgage Agreement established an autonomous enforcement regime, the Court reinforced the view that overlapping dispute resolution mechanisms may coexist within a coherent contractual framework and that judicial enforcement of security may proceed notwithstanding a related arbitration agreement. The judgment further underscores the importance of dispute characterisation in anti-suit injunction proceedings and reflects a continued reluctance to interfere with foreign enforcement proceedings where considerations of comity carry particular weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Margarita Ilieva<\/strong> is an LL.M. candidate in International Trade Law (Master&nbsp;en&nbsp;Droit du Commerce International) at the <strong>University of Paris Nanterre<\/strong>. She previously completed her studies in international law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, where she developed a strong interest in private international law and dispute resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-2dc9f01f\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Pas d\u2019anti-suit injunction : la Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019Angleterre valide des proc\u00e9dures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution parall\u00e8les<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">arr\u00eat rendu en avril 2026<\/a>, la <em>Court of Appeal of England and Wales<\/em>, dans l\u2019affaire <em>FH Holding Moscow Limited v AO UniCredit Bank and UniCredit S.p.A.<\/em>, a examin\u00e9 si les proc\u00e9dures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution engag\u00e9es \u00e0 Moscou avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 introduites en violation d\u2019une convention d\u2019arbitrage VIAC, ainsi que l\u2019articulation entre des clauses de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends concurrentes figurant dans des accords de financement interconnect\u00e9s. La Cour s\u2019est \u00e9galement prononc\u00e9e sur la comp\u00e9tence des juridictions anglaises \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard d\u2019un d\u00e9fendeur \u00e9tranger dans le cadre d\u2019une demande d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La demanderesse, FH Holding Moscow (\u00ab <strong>FHM<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), est une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 constitu\u00e9e \u00e0 Chypre dont les activit\u00e9s sont exerc\u00e9es exclusivement en Russie et qui est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme un r\u00e9sident fiscal russe, bien qu\u2019elle exploite \u00e9galement des centres commerciaux dans plusieurs autres pays de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne. Les d\u00e9fendeurs sont AO UniCredit Bank (\u00ab <strong>AO<\/strong> \u00bb) et UniCredit S.p.A. (\u00ab <strong>SPA<\/strong> \u00bb), respectivement une banque russe et sa soci\u00e9t\u00e9 m\u00e8re italienne.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 2 novembre 2018, les parties ont conclu un accord de cr\u00e9dit comprenant des facilit\u00e9s de cr\u00e9dit libell\u00e9es en euros et en roubles accord\u00e9es respectivement par SPA et AO, AO agissant \u00e9galement en tant qu\u2019agent de cr\u00e9dit. L\u2019accord \u00e9tait r\u00e9gi par le droit anglais et contenait une clause d\u2019arbitrage VIAC (clause 9) pr\u00e9voyant un arbitrage dont le si\u00e8ge serait \u00e0 Vienne pour les litiges d\u00e9coulant de l\u2019accord ou s\u2019y rapportant, y compris les obligations non contractuelles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019accord de financement s\u2019inscrivait dans une structure de financement plus large comprenant notamment un contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que conclu le 6 novembre 2018, en vertu duquel FHM avait constitu\u00e9 des s\u00fbret\u00e9s sur des biens immobiliers situ\u00e9s \u00e0 Moscou et dans sa r\u00e9gion. Ce contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que \u00e9tait r\u00e9gi par le droit russe et pr\u00e9voyait que les proc\u00e9dures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution soient engag\u00e9es devant le tribunal de commerce de Moscou (clause 9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00c0 la suite du d\u00e9clenchement de la guerre en Ukraine et de l\u2019adoption de contre-sanctions par la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie, FHM a soutenu que le remboursement du pr\u00eat libell\u00e9 en euros \u00e9tait devenu illicite. Elle faisait valoir qu\u2019elle avait continu\u00e9 \u00e0 honorer sa dette au moyen de paiements effectu\u00e9s en roubles, contestait la survenance de tout d\u00e9faut de paiement et invoquait l\u2019existence d\u2019accords de restructuration qui auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 discut\u00e9s entre les parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 24 mars 2025, AO a engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure de saisie immobili\u00e8re devant le tribunal arbitrazh de la r\u00e9gion de Moscou, soutenant que le d\u00e9faut de paiement de FHM au titre de l\u2019accord de financement avait entra\u00een\u00e9 la survenance d\u2019un d\u00e9faut de paiement. FHM a contest\u00e9 l\u2019existence de ce d\u00e9faut et soutenu que le litige relevait du champ d\u2019application de la convention d\u2019arbitrage de la VIAC. Elle a ensuite fait intervenir SPA dans la proc\u00e9dure russe en qualit\u00e9 de tiers et a en outre all\u00e9gu\u00e9 qu\u2019AO avait engag\u00e9 cette proc\u00e9dure sur instruction de SPA, de sorte que les deux entit\u00e9s auraient agi en violation de la convention d\u2019arbitrage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 7 ao\u00fbt 2025, FHM a saisi la Haute Cour de justice d\u2019Angleterre et du Pays de Galles d\u2019une demande d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> dirig\u00e9e contre les deux banques. Lors d\u2019une audience tenue sans pr\u00e9avis, l\u2019autorisation de signifier l\u2019assignation \u00e0 AO hors du ressort juridictionnel a \u00e9t\u00e9 accord\u00e9e sur le fondement de plusieurs chefs de comp\u00e9tence, notamment celui de la partie n\u00e9cessaire et appropri\u00e9e ainsi que de la disposition CPR PD 6B, paragraphe 3.1(6)(c), relative aux demandes introduites \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard d\u2019un contrat r\u00e9gi par le droit anglais. Il a toutefois \u00e9t\u00e9 ult\u00e9rieurement admis que la comp\u00e9tence des juridictions anglaises ne pouvait \u00eatre fond\u00e9e sur la convention d\u2019arbitrage elle-m\u00eame, d\u00e8s lors que la clause compromissoire \u00e9tait r\u00e9gie par le droit autrichien et non par le droit anglais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019affaire a ensuite \u00e9t\u00e9 examin\u00e9e par la Haute Cour, qui \u00e9tait simultan\u00e9ment saisie de l\u2019exception d\u2019incomp\u00e9tence soulev\u00e9e par AO et de la demande de jugement sommaire pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par SPA. La Cour a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que FHM n\u2019avait pas \u00e9tabli avec un degr\u00e9 de probabilit\u00e9 suffisant que la proc\u00e9dure engag\u00e9e \u00e0 Moscou l\u2019avait \u00e9t\u00e9 en violation de la convention d\u2019arbitrage. Elle a en cons\u00e9quence rejet\u00e9 la demande d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> fond\u00e9e sur le caract\u00e8re vexatoire et oppressif de cette proc\u00e9dure, accueilli la demande de jugement sommaire form\u00e9e par SPA et conclu \u00e0 l\u2019absence de comp\u00e9tence des juridictions anglaises \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard d\u2019AO. D\u00e8s lors, l\u2019autorisation de signifier l\u2019assignation \u00e0 AO hors du ressort juridictionnel a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9tract\u00e9e, tandis que les demandes dirig\u00e9es contre SPA ont \u00e9t\u00e9 rejet\u00e9es.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">FHM a interjet\u00e9 appel de la d\u00e9cision de la Haute Cour en invoquant quatre moyens principaux : premi\u00e8rement, que la clause 9 du contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que avait \u00e9t\u00e9 interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e de mani\u00e8re erron\u00e9e et que la proc\u00e9dure engag\u00e9e \u00e0 Moscou relevait du champ d\u2019application de la convention d\u2019arbitrage VIAC contenue dans l\u2019accord de financement ; deuxi\u00e8mement, que les juridictions anglaises \u00e9taient comp\u00e9tentes \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard d\u2019AO d\u00e8s lors que la demande d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> \u00e9tait introduite \u00ab \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard \u00bb d\u2019un contrat r\u00e9gi par le droit anglais ; troisi\u00e8mement, qu\u2019AO pouvait valablement \u00eatre attrait \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure sur le fondement du chef de comp\u00e9tence de la partie n\u00e9cessaire et appropri\u00e9e en raison du lien existant avec les demandes form\u00e9es contre SPA ; et quatri\u00e8mement, que le refus d\u2019accorder une <em>anti-suit injunction <\/em>reposait sur une appr\u00e9ciation erron\u00e9e du pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire du juge, contrairement au principe d\u00e9gag\u00e9 dans l\u2019arr\u00eat <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-renaissance-securities-cyprus-limited-v-chlodwig-enterprises-limited-adorabella-limited-gekolina-investments-ltd-dubhe-holdings-limited-owl-nebula-enterprises-limited-and-perpecia-limited-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-friday-3rd-november-2023\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises<\/a><\/em>, selon lequel une telle mesure est, en principe, accord\u00e9e lorsqu\u2019une proc\u00e9dure \u00e9trang\u00e8re est engag\u00e9e en violation d\u2019une convention d\u2019arbitrage, sauf raisons imp\u00e9rieuses justifiant une solution contraire. FHM n\u2019a toutefois pas maintenu son argument subsidiaire selon lequel la proc\u00e9dure russe pr\u00e9sentait un caract\u00e8re vexatoire ou oppressif.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En r\u00e9ponse, AO a soutenu que FHM s\u2019\u00e9tait fond\u00e9e sur une voie proc\u00e9durale inappropri\u00e9e pour signifier l\u2019assignation \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger. Selon AO, les demandes relatives \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage rel\u00e8vent exclusivement de la r\u00e8gle 62.5 des Civil Procedure Rules et ne peuvent \u00eatre fond\u00e9es sur les chefs g\u00e9n\u00e9raux de comp\u00e9tence pr\u00e9vus par la Practice Direction 6B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bien que l\u2019appel ait fait l\u2019objet d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e, le tribunal moscovite a rendu sa d\u00e9cision peu avant l\u2019audience. Celui-ci a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que le litige relevait de la clause 21 du contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que, qu\u2019AO pouvait r\u00e9aliser la s\u00fbret\u00e9 sans d\u00e9cision pr\u00e9alable d\u2019un tribunal arbitral de la VIAC et qu\u2019un d\u00e9faut de paiement \u00e9tait effectivement survenu. La demande d\u2019AO a n\u00e9anmoins \u00e9t\u00e9 rejet\u00e9e au motif qu\u2019elle n\u2019avait pas obtenu les autorisations administratives requises par le droit russe avant de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la saisie. La Cour d\u2019appel a toutefois estim\u00e9 que le litige conservait son objet, d\u00e8s lors qu\u2019AO demeurait en mesure soit d\u2019interjeter appel de cette d\u00e9cision, soit d\u2019engager une nouvelle proc\u00e9dure apr\u00e8s avoir obtenu les autorisations n\u00e9cessaires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Les proc\u00e9dures engag\u00e9es \u00e0 Moscou ont-elles \u00e9t\u00e9 introduites en violation de la clause compromissoire contenue dans l\u2019accord de financement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Raisonnement de la Haute Cour confirm\u00e9 par la Cour d\u2019appel<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour d\u2019appel a confirm\u00e9 la conclusion de la Haute Cour selon laquelle la proc\u00e9dure engag\u00e9e \u00e0 Moscou n\u2019avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 introduite en violation de la convention d\u2019arbitrage VIAC. Elle a estim\u00e9 que les litiges relatifs \u00e0 un cas de d\u00e9faut et au montant restant d\u00fb pouvaient na\u00eetre simultan\u00e9ment au titre de l\u2019accord de financement et du contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que. L\u2019incorporation dans le contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que des d\u00e9finitions et des cas de d\u00e9faut pr\u00e9vus par l\u2019accord de financement n\u2019avait pas pour effet de soumettre exclusivement ces litiges \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage, mais refl\u00e9tait l\u2019intention des parties de permettre le fonctionnement de m\u00e9canismes de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends qui se chevauchent au sein d\u2019accords interd\u00e9pendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a en outre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que le contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que, correctement interpr\u00e9t\u00e9, autorisait une ex\u00e9cution judiciaire imm\u00e9diate d\u00e8s la survenance d\u2019un cas de d\u00e9faut, sans exiger de d\u00e9cision arbitrale pr\u00e9alable. Le contrat \u00e9tablissait ainsi un m\u00e9canisme autonome d\u2019ex\u00e9cution permettant au tribunal de commerce de Moscou de trancher lui-m\u00eame les questions relatives au d\u00e9faut dans le cadre de la proc\u00e9dure de saisie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a \u00e9galement consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u00e9fendue par FHM privait les dispositions du contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que relatives \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de tout effet utile, d\u00e8s lors que celles-ci envisageaient express\u00e9ment une ex\u00e9cution sans qu\u2019aucune autorisation judiciaire ou \u00e9tatique pr\u00e9alable ne soit n\u00e9cessaire. Cette conclusion \u00e9tait renforc\u00e9e par les \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve \u00e9tablissant qu\u2019aucune autorisation distincte d\u2019un tribunal n\u2019\u00e9tait normalement requise avant l\u2019introduction d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure de saisie en Russie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Enfin, la Cour a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019argument selon lequel cette interpr\u00e9tation rendrait la convention d\u2019arbitrage inefficace. Des litiges relatifs aux facilit\u00e9s de cr\u00e9dit pouvaient toujours survenir, ind\u00e9pendamment des proc\u00e9dures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution de l\u2019hypoth\u00e8que, et demeuraient, par cons\u00e9quent, soumis \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage de la VIAC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Consid\u00e9rations suppl\u00e9mentaires identifi\u00e9es par la Cour d\u2019appel<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"2\" style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour d\u2019appel a \u00e9galement identifi\u00e9 plusieurs consid\u00e9rations suppl\u00e9mentaires venant \u00e9tayer cette conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Premi\u00e8rement, la Cour a observ\u00e9 que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u00e9fendue par FHM reposait largement sur des principes du droit anglais, alors m\u00eame que le litige concernait un contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que r\u00e9gi par le droit russe, contenant une clause attributive de juridiction au profit des juridictions russes et une convention d\u2019arbitrage r\u00e9gie par le droit autrichien. La Cour a sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 que l\u2019application exclusive de principes interpr\u00e9tatifs anglais dans de telles circonstances n\u2019allait pas de soi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Deuxi\u00e8mement, la Cour a relev\u00e9 que le tribunal de commerce de Moscou avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 jug\u00e9 que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution pouvait \u00eatre poursuivie sans qu\u2019une d\u00e9cision arbitrale pr\u00e9alable sur l\u2019existence d\u2019un cas de d\u00e9faut soit n\u00e9cessaire. D\u00e8s lors, accueillir les arguments de FHM reviendrait pour les juridictions anglaises \u00e0 conclure, en substance, que la juridiction russe avait interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 de mani\u00e8re erron\u00e9e un contrat r\u00e9gi par le droit russe, ce que la Cour a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme difficilement justifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Troisi\u00e8mement, la Cour a admis qu\u2019une certaine fragmentation proc\u00e9durale \u00e9tait in\u00e9vitable quelle que soit l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation retenue. Toutefois, alors que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des intim\u00e9es permettait simplement la coexistence de proc\u00e9dures parall\u00e8les, celle de FHM rendrait les chevauchements in\u00e9vitables en exigeant une sentence arbitrale pr\u00e9alable avant que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de l\u2019hypoth\u00e8que puisse \u00eatre engag\u00e9e. La Cour a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 qu\u2019une telle solution \u00e9tait artificielle d\u2019un point de vue commercial, notamment au regard de l\u2019importance de mesures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution rapides en cas de d\u00e9faut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Enfin, la Cour a jug\u00e9 que la signification de l\u2019expression \u00ab arbitration court \u00bb n\u2019\u00e9tait pas d\u00e9terminante. Dans l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre cas, cette disposition confortait la conclusion selon laquelle les proc\u00e9dures d\u2019ex\u00e9cution pouvaient \u00eatre engag\u00e9es imm\u00e9diatement, les litiges devant \u00eatre r\u00e9solus dans le cadre de ces proc\u00e9dures plut\u00f4t qu\u2019au moyen d\u2019un processus arbitral pr\u00e9alable. La Cour a par cons\u00e9quent refus\u00e9 la demande de FHM tendant \u00e0 produire en appel de nouveaux \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve relatifs \u00e0 la signification de cette expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Autres questions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ayant rejet\u00e9 l\u2019appel sur le premier moyen, la Cour d\u2019appel a estim\u00e9 qu\u2019il n\u2019\u00e9tait pas n\u00e9cessaire de statuer sur les autres questions relatives \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence juridictionnelle. Elle a n\u00e9anmoins formul\u00e9 plusieurs observations concernant les circonstances dans lesquelles les juridictions anglaises peuvent se reconna\u00eetre comp\u00e9tentes \u00e0 l\u2019appui d\u2019arbitrages ayant leur si\u00e8ge \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Se r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 l\u2019arr\u00eat <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-unicredit-bank-ag-v-ruschemalliance-llc-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2025-ewca-99-tuesday-11th-february-2025?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DUniCredit%2Bv%2BRusChemAlliance&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">UniCredit v RusChemAlliance<\/a><\/em>, la Cour a relev\u00e9 que la jurisprudence ant\u00e9rieure consid\u00e9rait la convention d\u2019arbitrage elle-m\u00eame, plut\u00f4t que le contrat commercial sous-jacent, comme le contrat pertinent aux fins du \u00ab chef de comp\u00e9tence contractuel \u00bb. Sans adopter de position d\u00e9finitive sur ce point, la Cour a observ\u00e9 qu\u2019une demande pouvait, en principe, se rattacher simultan\u00e9ment \u00e0 plusieurs contrats. Elle a \u00e9galement reconnu que l\u2019admission de l\u2019argumentation de FHM pourrait \u00e9largir consid\u00e9rablement les hypoth\u00e8ses dans lesquelles les juridictions anglaises seraient susceptibles d\u2019exercer leur comp\u00e9tence lorsque le contrat principal est r\u00e9gi par le droit anglais mais que la convention d\u2019arbitrage est soumise \u00e0 un droit \u00e9tranger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour s\u2019est \u00e9galement pench\u00e9e sur la question de savoir si les r\u00e8gles proc\u00e9durales applicables aux demandes relatives \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage (CPR 62.5) constituent le fondement exclusif permettant de signifier des actes de proc\u00e9dure hors du ressort juridictionnel, excluant ainsi le recours aux chefs ordinaires de comp\u00e9tence pr\u00e9vus par la CPR Part 6 et la Practice Direction 6B. La Cour a relev\u00e9 que cet argument pr\u00e9sentait une \u00ab force consid\u00e9rable \u00bb, notamment parce que les r\u00e8gles relatives \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage comportent leurs propres dispositions sp\u00e9cifiques concernant la signification \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger. Elle s\u2019est toutefois estim\u00e9e li\u00e9e par une jurisprudence ant\u00e9rieure de la Cour supr\u00eame, qui reposait sur l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle les chefs ordinaires de comp\u00e9tence demeurent applicables aux demandes li\u00e9es \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019enjeu pratique de cette question \u00e9tait consid\u00e9rable. Si les chefs ordinaires de comp\u00e9tence n\u2019\u00e9taient pas disponibles, les parties sollicitant une <em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> \u00e0 l\u2019appui d\u2019un arbitrage ayant son si\u00e8ge \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tranger se trouveraient fr\u00e9quemment dans l\u2019impossibilit\u00e9 de saisir les juridictions anglaises. Bien que la Cour ait refus\u00e9 de trancher d\u00e9finitivement cette question, elle a laiss\u00e9 entendre qu\u2019une clarification du cadre proc\u00e9dural pourrait, \u00e0 terme, s\u2019av\u00e9rer n\u00e9cessaire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>L\u2019arr\u00eat de la Cour d\u2019appel dans l\u2019affaire <em>FH Holding Moscow v AO UniCredit Bank<\/em> confirme et d\u00e9veloppe les principes applicables aux clauses concurrentes de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends figurant dans des accords interd\u00e9pendants. En confirmant la conclusion de la Haute Cour selon laquelle le contrat d\u2019hypoth\u00e8que instaurait un r\u00e9gime autonome d\u2019ex\u00e9cution, la Cour a renforc\u00e9 l\u2019id\u00e9e que des m\u00e9canismes de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends se chevauchant peuvent coexister au sein d\u2019un cadre contractuel coh\u00e9rent et que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution judiciaire d\u2019une s\u00fbret\u00e9 peut \u00eatre poursuivie malgr\u00e9 l\u2019existence d\u2019une convention d\u2019arbitrage connexe. L\u2019arr\u00eat souligne en outre l\u2019importance de la qualification du litige dans le cadre des demandes d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> et refl\u00e8te une r\u00e9ticence persistante \u00e0 intervenir dans des proc\u00e9dures \u00e9trang\u00e8res d\u2019ex\u00e9cution lorsque des consid\u00e9rations de courtoisie internationale rev\u00eatent une importance particuli\u00e8re.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Margarita Ilieva<\/strong> is an LL.M. candidate in International Trade Law (Master&nbsp;en&nbsp;Droit du Commerce International) at the <strong>University of Paris Nanterre<\/strong>. She previously completed her studies in international law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, where she developed a strong interest in private international law and dispute resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Can courts enforce security while arbitration is pending? A landmark English ruling reshapes the balance between litigation and arbitration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291604,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"168"},"jnews_social_meta":{"twitter_description":"Can courts enforce security while arbitration is pending? A landmark English ruling reshapes the balance between litigation and arbitration.","fb_description":"Can courts enforce security while arbitration is pending? A landmark English ruling reshapes the balance between litigation and arbitration.","fb_title":"No Anti-Suit Relief: English Court Gives Effect to Parallel Enforcement Proceedings","twitter_title":"No Anti-Suit Relief: English Court Gives Effect to Parallel Enforcement Proceedings","twitter_image":"291605","fb_image":"291605"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,207,167,188,276,168,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-europe","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-united-kingdom","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291593"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291593\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291822,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291593\/revisions\/291822"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291593"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}