反诉禁令和仲裁：为冲突驱动的争端浪潮做准备

Preparing for the Wave of Conflict-driven Disputes Europe – 30 March 2026 As the Middle East conflict continues, Iran has attacked key infrastructure, including the RasLaffan liquified natural gas (LNG) complex, the Habshan Gas Processing Complex, the Bab OilField and the SAMREF Refinery. Simultaneously, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, Our authors are monitoring the situation closely and havespoken to legal counsel situated in or operating across theregion, discussing crisis management,force majeureclausesand war risk clauses, as well as advising on immediateactions and responses to contractual counterparts. Our global Other key strategic reasons include: •Preventing parallel proceedings that risk inconsistentoutcomes•Preserving nonsubstantive advantages of litigating incertain jurisdictions (e.g. preferable procedural, evidential Sometimes, however, procedure is as important, if not moreso, than the substantive dispute. This insight examinesanti-suit injunctions; a procedural weapon used to protect The English Law Test As a matter of English law, there are two distinct tests,depending on the foundation of the ASI application. Anti-suit Injunctions 1.Contractual (Breach of a Jurisdiction or Anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) are equitable orders seeking toprevent a party from starting or continuing legal proceedings This test applies where a party commences foreignproceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction orarbitration clause. An injunction will ordinarily be granted ASIs bind the targeted party, not the foreign court. Whileforeign proceedings may therefore technically continue, an •A negative injunction– Ordering a party to take nofurther steps in the foreign proceedings. •Is there a valid jurisdiction or arbitration clausegoverning relations between the parties? •A mandatory injunction– Ordering a party to takepositive steps to alleviate the breach, such as discontinuing •If so, do the foreign proceedings amount to a breach of •If so, has the party in breach established a “strongreason” why discretion to issue an injunction shouldnot be exercised? (For example, where it would expose •A penal notice– By incorporating a penal notice, theenjoined party, and any third parties that might assist them, –Imprisonment of up to two years –A fine (the court has broad discretion to set the financial Notably, a court may also grant an injunction enforcing aclause against a nonparty. This can arise where a nonpartyseeks to enforce contract terms through a statutory rightof direct action (as inThe Prestige), or where a clause –Seizure of assets applies to disputes with a contracting party’s affiliates andproceedings are commenced against an affiliate in breach Strategic Utility of ASIs The most common reason to seek an ASI is to preventa party from commencing or pursuing proceedings in a Practical Steps 2.Noncontractual (Alternative Forum Cases) Where no contractual clause exists, the English courtsmay still grant an ASI, but the test is more stringent. It As matters develop quickly, there are several practical steps •Monitor dockets in jurisdictions where counterparties have •The English court has a sufficient interest in the matteras to justify the grant of anti-suit relief (e.g. where theinjunction is sought to restrain an attempt to indirectlycircumvent an English jurisdiction or arbitration clause, •Act promptly once threatened, notified of or served with •Apply for the ASI before the foreign court has the chanceto decide on an application to stay or dismiss the foreign •The pursuit of foreign proceedings is unconscionable,vexatious or oppressive, or that the ends of justice •Consider also applying for damages in addition to the ASI inaccordance with S50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. •Avoid taking steps that would be deemed voluntarysubmission in the foreign proceedings, such as seeking to The Evidentiary Burden and the Need to The evidentiary burden shifts depending on whether theASI is sought on an interim or final basis, and whether it •Leverage the protection available under S32 and S33 ofthe Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act to work withlocal counsel to carefully (a) challenge the foreign court’sjurisdiction, (b) ask the court to dismiss or stay proceedings For example, proving vexation or oppression depends onall the facts taken together. Simply demonstrating theexistence of parallel proceedings is not typically sufficient. •Commence proceedings seeking an indemnity, and/or damages for breach of the jurisdiction or arbitration •The foreign claim is doomed to fail. •Collate evidence of all costs and damage sustained as aresult of the foreign proceedings, as well as the impact of •The foreign proceedings were initiated to attack or evade •The foreign claim would expose the applicant to the risk ofirreconcilable judgments, or duplicate cross-examination. •Review additional weaponry available, including interimorders such as asset disclosure