The Court of Appeal in LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SPA [2026] EWCA Civ 5 has confirmed that the court has power under section 42(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) to order compliance with an arbitral tribunal’s peremptory order granting anti-suit relief. Its power was not limited to peremptory orders “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration” and, in any event, compliance with anti-suit relief is capable of being necessary in that regard.

Facts

The underlying arbitration

LLC Eurochem North‑West‑2 (NW2) and Tecnimont/MT Russia (the Contractors) had entered into contracts for the construction of a plant in Russia, each containing an ICC arbitration clause with a London seat. A dispute arose when the Contractors ceased performance, claiming that NW2 was owned and controlled by a designated person, such that performance would have put them in breach of EU sanctions. NW2 disputed the validity of such suspension and terminated the contracts, alleging contractual breach. The Contractors contended that NW2’s termination was unlawful and commenced arbitration proceedings.

The High Court decision

NW2 initially participated in the arbitration, however, following a judgment by Bright J in separate proceedings finding that NW2 was owned and controlled by a designated person, NW2’s attitude towards the arbitration changed. The NW2 group started multiple proceedings in Russian courts, including parallel proceedings seeking the same relief NW2 counterclaimed in the arbitration and anti‑arbitration injunctions.

The arbitral tribunal made several peremptory anti‑suit relief orders, requiring NW2 to withdraw the Russian proceedings and interim measures therein obtained. NW2 did not comply.

The Contractors applied to the Commercial Court under section 42(1)[1] of the Act to enforce the peremptory orders. Butcher J granted the application and issued injunctions requiring NW2 to comply.

NW2 appealed, arguing that, by operation of sections 41(1)[2] and 41(5)[3] of the Act, the power under section 42 is limited to the enforcement of orders that are “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration”. Anti‑suit injunctions do not meet that test because they are “external” to the reference: they are aimed at enforcing the original arbitration agreement, rather than any duty arising out of the reference. Such relief must instead be sought, if at all, under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981.

Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Popplewell LJ (with whom Phillips LJ and May LJ agreed) held that:

1. The language of section 41(5) empowers tribunals to convert “any order or directions” into a peremptory order. It is not restricted by section 41(1) to orders “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration”; a tribunal may convert into peremptory orders any order it has the power to make.
   
2. In any event, compliance with tribunal orders is always “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct” of arbitration.
   
3. Anti‑suit relief specifically can be necessary for proper conduct of the arbitration as parallel proceedings can hinder or obstruct the arbitration, for example by diverting resources or affecting enforceability.
   
4. The Court’s construction was supported by section 41A of the Act, dealing with peremptory orders by emergency arbitrators, which does not contain wording similar to section 41(1) regarding “proper and expeditious conduct”. Parliament could not have intended the court’s power to enforce peremptory orders of a tribunal to be narrower than those of an emergency arbitrator.

Given the Court’s findings, it did not consider whether an injunction would have been available under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981.

Commentary

This is an important decision as it ensures that London-seated arbitral tribunals have a wide jurisdiction to make peremptory orders, including for anti-suit relief. In turn, it also ensures that the English Court has a wide jurisdiction to make orders – carrying the threat of contempt of court if not complied with – requiring compliance with such peremptory orders. The decision thereby reaffirms English law’s robust and supportive approach towards the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the arbitral process.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article further, please contact Anna Maxwell.

[1] “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court may make an order requiring a party to comply with a peremptory order made by the tribunal […]”

[2] “The parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal in case of a party’s failure to do something necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration.”

[3] “If without showing sufficient cause a party fails to comply with any order or directions of the tribunal, the tribunal may make a peremptory order to the same effect, prescribing such time for compliance with it as the tribunal considers appropriate.”