Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and 5 others [2025] EWCA Civ 369

3 April 2025

Ø   Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs): contractual and non-contractual grounds for granting an ASI.

An arbitration agreement between the parties does not prevent a party from making a claim against a non-party in respect of a connected dispute, unless possibly the action was in respect of a joint tort committed by a party and the non-party.

An anti-suit injunction (ASI) may ordinarily be granted on two grounds. First, on a contractual basis, where the foreign proceedings are brought in breach of a contract between the parties, as would be the case where the action was in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause – in that case, usually an ASI will be granted. Second, on a non-contractual basis where the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive. In a “single forum” case, where the only forum for a party to bring the subject proceedings is the foreign court, the court may still grant an ASI to restrain the party from bringing or proceeding the foreign proceedings if they are vexatious or oppressive, but the court will exercise great caution. In “alternative forum” cases, before an ASI is granted on the basis that the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive on grounds of forum non conveniens, not only the application must satisfy the court that England is clearly the more appropriate forum (“the natural forum”), thus have “sufficient interest”, but also that justice requires that the respondent should be restrained from proceeding with the foreign proceedings.

An ASI may be granted where it is necessary to: (1) protect the integrity of an arbitral process, (2) protect the jurisdiction or process of the English court (“the golden thread”) and the integrity of orders of English courts, or (3) protect the public policy of the UK.

An ASI include a mandatory injunction to terminate or withdraw the foreign proceedings, where necessary. A party may apply for an ASI to prevent the respondent from proceeding with foreign proceedings, not only against the applicant but also against non-parties, but the applicant must have legitimate interest to protect the non-parties.

Even where the foreign proceedings may potentially be vexatious or oppressive, the court will not exercise the discretion to grant an ASI where the applicant refuses to provide the court with the “fullest possible knowledge and understanding of all the circumstances relevant to the litigation and the parties”.

HCRG Care Limited v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 794 (KB)

2 April 2025

Ø   Continuation of Injunction against unknown persons (hackers)

Ø   Service of orders and papers on the unknown hackers.

Unknown persons, identifying themselves as “Medusa”, stole sensitive data from the claimant’s servers and blackmailed the claimant for a ransom, threatening to widely share the data. The claimant made a breach of confidence claim against the unknown persons and obtained a without notice interim injunction against the unknown persons. The claimant served the order and claim form by sending the defendants a link to a file-sharing site containing the documents via a chat box provided by the defendants. Since then, the defendants disabled the chat box as a tactic to prevent service. Subsequent documents were served by email. The claimant applied for an order to validate the service and to continue the interim injunction.

The claimant requested the court to consider the application for the return date on the papers or in private. The judge found that this was an appropriate case to allow the request, which should be allowed only in exceptional cases, and accordingly considered the application on the papers. The judge found that s 12(3) HRA 1998 and Art 10 ECHR were not engaged in favour of the defendants in this case, which involves blackmail, a crime under s 21(1) Theft Act 1968, and that blackmail is a misuse of the freedom of expression. The court was also satisfied that the procedural safeguards in s 12(2) for considering an interim injunction application in the absence of the defendant were met in this case, as the claimant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent of the application.

Having cleared HRA 1998, including the ECHR incorporated into it and the procedural safeguards there, the judge found that the applicable test was that set out in American Cyanamid case. The judge found that the test was satisfied, as there was a serious issue to be tried, and plainly, damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant who had given their cross-undertaking in damages, and the balance of convenience was in favour of continuing the interim injunction. The judge accordingly continued the interim injunction.