<center><span class="news-text_italic-underline">Judgment Date: 13 January 2026</span></center>
The appellant, a Russian company, engaged the respondents under contracts entered into in 2020 for the construction of a chemical plant in Russia. The contracts contained arbitration clauses providing for London-seated arbitration. In 2022, the respondents suspended works, alleging that the appellant was owned by a Russian individual subject to EU sanctions. The appellant purported to terminate the contracts. The respondents commenced London arbitration, alleging unlawful termination. Although the appellant initially participated, it subsequently brought court proceedings in Russia seeking damages and obtained anti-arbitration injunctions and interim measures freezing the respondents’ assets up to €103 million.
The arbitral tribunal held that the appellant’s actions breached the arbitration agreements and issued peremptory orders under section 41(5) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span> requiring the appellant to withdraw the Russian proceedings and lift the interim measures. The appellant failed to comply and the respondents successfully applied to the High Court under section 42 for enforcement of the peremptory orders. The appellant argued that peremptory orders under section 41(5) and their enforcement under section 42, were limited to matters directly related to the conduct of the arbitration itself and to obligations “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct” of the proceedings. On this basis, the appellant contended that such powers could not extend to restraining proceedings in a foreign court.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. It held that section 41(5) is not qualified in the manner suggested by the appellant and permits a tribunal to issue peremptory orders for any failure to comply with an order or direction of the tribunal, provided the underlying order was within the tribunal’s powers. Compliance with tribunal orders is, in itself, something necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration, as reflected in section 40(2)(a) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span>. The court further noted that the breadth of section 41(5) is supported by section 41A, which grants emergency arbitrators equivalent powers to make peremptory orders without the limitations argued for by the appellant. There was no commercial or logical basis for emergency arbitrators to have broader powers than a fully constituted tribunal.
In any event, the Court of Appeal held that compliance with anti-suit relief is capable of being necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitration, particularly where such relief is aimed at preventing parallel proceedings or anti-arbitration injunctions that threaten to undermine the arbitration.
The tribunal’s power to issue peremptory orders under section 41(5) applies to any failure to comply with an order or direction of the tribunal and is not limited by section 41(1). Compliance with tribunal orders is itself part of the parties’ duty to ensure the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration under section 40(2)(a). In any event, anti-suit relief is capable of being necessary to protect the arbitration from parallel proceedings or anti-arbitration measures. This interpretation is reinforced by section 41A, which grants emergency arbitrators equivalent powers.
The decision reinforces the English courts’ strong pro-arbitration stance and confirms that tribunals’ peremptory orders, including those granting anti-suit relief, can be enforced by the courts. It provides important guidance on the scope of sections 41 and 42 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span> and strengthens the effectiveness of arbitral measures aimed at protecting the arbitral process from parallel or hostile court proceedings.
