On 13 March 2026, Bryan J gave judgment in Maxamcorp International S.L. v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm). The decision continued, with necessary variations, the order of Andrew Baker J dated 2 March 2026 granting anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Eurotel on the quasi-contractual basis.
Eurotel had brought proceedings in Russia seeking to recover sums said to be due under several supply agreements entered into by Maxamcorp to which Eurotel claimed to be entitled as assignee. The supply agreements contained varied arbitration agreements, providing for LCIA arbitration in London, HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong, and ICC arbitration in as yet undesignated seats. The Court held that Maxamcorp was entitled to anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions in relation to the claims brought pursuant to all of the supply agreements, not only those containing English law governed arbitration agreements ([50-56, 66(4)]).
Eurotel obtained a judgment on the merits from the Russian court at a hearing on 4 March 2026 despite the interim injunction Maxamcorp had obtained ex parte on 2 March 2026. This introduced an additional layer of complexity at the return date, as Maxamcorp applied to vary the mandatory component of the interim injunction to require Eurotel to take all necessary steps within its power to set aside the Russian judgment. Notwithstanding the interim stage of the proceedings, the Court held that such a mandatory order was appropriate ([4, 68, 106]).
The judgment is available here.
Paul Key KC and Nathan Twibill appeared for Maxamcorp at the hearing, while Louise Hutton KC and Nathan Twibill appeared for Maxamcorp at the ex parte 2 March 2026 hearing. They were instructed by James Hayton of LK Law.
