Commercial Court Declines to Extend Anti-Enforcement Relief Beyond Arbitral Peremptory Order

In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Tecnimont SPA and another v LLC Eurochem North-West-2 [2026] EWHC 255 (Comm)</span>, the English Commercial Court granted an application under section 42 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span> to enforce a peremptory order made by a London-seated arbitral tribunal. At the same time, the Court refused to grant additional relief under section 37 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Senior Courts Act 1981</span>, concluding that such relief would go beyond the scope of the arbitral tribunal’s order and undermine the statutory scheme for enforcing arbitral decisions.

The dispute arose from a construction project in Russia that was suspended as a result of sanctions. The claimants commenced arbitration in London in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement. Despite this, the respondent, LLC Eurochem North-West-2 (“<span class="news-text_medium">NW2</span>”), initiated proceedings before the Russian courts and obtained judgments in its favour.

The arbitral tribunal issued a series of orders, including peremptory orders requiring NW2 to desist from pursuing the Russian proceedings. Those orders were previously enforced by Butcher J, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal. NW2 nonetheless failed to comply and proceeded to initiate enforcement actions in other jurisdictions in respect of the Russian judgments.

In response, the tribunal made further orders, including an order restraining NW2 from seeking to enforce the Russian judgments or any further judgments it might obtain. The tribunal subsequently issued a narrower peremptory order (“<span class="news-text_medium">PO28</span>”), requiring NW2 to confirm that it would not enforce any Russian judgment and to withdraw the enforcement proceedings already commenced.

The claimants applied to the Court to enforce PO28 under section 42 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span> (the “<span class="news-text_medium">section 42 application</span>”). In parallel, they sought broader relief under section 37 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">the Senior Courts Act 1981</span>, requesting an injunction restraining NW2 from taking any steps to enforce any Russian judgment (the “<span class="news-text_medium">section 37 application</span>”).

Dame Clare Moulder DBE granted the section 42 application, holding that enforcement of the tribunal’s peremptory order was appropriate. The judge concluded that an anti-enforcement injunction designed to prevent the enforcement of judgments obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement fell within the scope of section 42, consistent with earlier authority. The Court also accepted that the risk—previously raised and rejected—that compliance with the order might expose NW2’s officers to criminal liability in Russia was outweighed by the need to uphold and support the arbitral process.

However, the Court refused the section 37 application. Dame Clare Moulder held that granting relief extending beyond the terms of the tribunal’s peremptory order would cut across the statutory framework governing enforcement of arbitral orders under the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration Act 1996</span>. Section 42(3) required the Court to be satisfied that all available arbitral remedies have been exhausted before it intervenes. In this case, the claimants remained free to seek further peremptory orders from the tribunal, including in the broader terms originally contemplated, which could then be enforced through the statutory mechanism.

Even if the Court retained a residual discretion to grant relief under section 37 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Senior Courts Act 1981</span>, the judge declined to exercise it in the circumstances. The decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Google LLC and another v Nao Tsargrad Media [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm)</span>, where anti-enforcement relief had been granted under section 37, was distinguished on the basis that no arbitral tribunal had yet been constituted in that case.

<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Tecnimont SPA and another v LLC Eurochem North-West-2 [2026] EWHC 255 (Comm)</span>, 9 February 2026 (Dame Clare Moulder DBE).