In a judgment handed down on 22 January 2025 in Google LLC & Google Ireland Limited v. NAO Tsargrad Media & others [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm), Mr Justice Henshaw upheld claims for final anti-enforcement (and ancillary anti-anti-suit) injunctive relief against three Russian-domiciled defendants after an expedited trial of four actions commenced in mid-August 2024.
Google’s claims relate to a series of civil judgments made by the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow, and related appeals, during April 2021 to June 2023. The underlying disputes concern termination of online services – including use of Gmail accounts and You Tube channels – in response to the imposition of international sanctions. The Russian judgments purport to compel reinstatement of defined services, and additionally impose astreinte penalties which increase in amount until full compliance with such mandatory coercive orders.
An estimate of the accumulated total of some of those judicial penalties was said last year to exceed £1.85 octillion, i.e. £1,850,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – a figure which, as Henshaw J noted at [43], is “about 20 trillion times greater than the estimated GDP of all the economies in the world”. Google do not accept any of these as legitimate debts. Henshaw J described them as “exorbitant” and “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money of a penal nature … bearing no relationship to any measure of compensatory damages” (see [114](vi)).
Steps taken since late last year to enforce the penal element of such judgments against group assets and assets of affiliated entities in various jurisdictions outside Russia prompted Google to seek anti-enforcement injunctive (‘AEI’) relief and ancillary anti-anti-suit injunctive (‘AASI’) relief in both London and California. Interim relief was granted on a without notice basis by HHJ Pelling KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court in August (see [2024] EWHC 2212 (Comm)) and interim undertakings held the position through to an expedited trial and jurisdiction challenge directed by Dias J in September.
The primary basis for seeking injunctive relief was contractual, i.e. preventing unlawful attempts to take advantage of judgments obtained in breach of exclusive forum or arbitration agreements governed by English law in the relevant contractual arrangements. This claim was upheld in full in a reserved judgment following a two day trial in late November.
By way of overview:
- Henshaw J’s judgment contains an extensive review of the authorities dealing with AEI relief, the impact of any delay in seeking such relief and the role of comity in the exercise of remedial discretion: see [58]-[80] & summary of principles at [82].
- Henshaw J found that the choice of the courts of England & Wales in the You Tube Terms of Service is exclusive in nature and was not displaced by any relevant mandatory law of the Russian Federation; cf. Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code: see [85]-[100].
- Henshaw J rejected the defendants’ contention that Google had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts or waived any of their jurisdictional rights as a matter of English law: see [101]-[112].
- Henshaw J rejected the defendants’ contentions based upon delay and comity, including on the basis of the relative infancy of the various foreign enforcement proceedings themselves, concluding that Google “acted with appropriate speed” in all the circumstances of the present case: see [113]-[115].
- Henshaw J indicated his willingness to grant protective AASI (strictly speaking, AAAEI) relief in order to prevent potential interference with this Court’s own process and use of its coercive powers: see [83] & [116].
Stephen Houseman KC represents the claimants, Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited, together with Kabir Bhalla (of King & Spalding) and Lorraine Aboagye, instructed by Sarah Walker of King & Spalding International LLP.
