For businesses involved in international transactions, a dispute can sometimes lead to cross-border litigation, with legal proceedings in more than one country. This can increase legal costs, create uncertainty and lead to different courts considering the same dispute.

An anti-suit injunction (ASI) can, in certain circumstances, help address this problem. An ASI is a court order requiring a party to refrain from commencing or continuing legal proceedings in a foreign court, for example where those proceedings breach an agreed jurisdiction or arbitration clause. Importantly, an ASI does not order the foreign court to halt the proceedings. Instead, it operates against the party bringing or continuing the foreign claim. This raises an important question for businesses involved in cross-border disputes: can parties really stop litigation in a foreign court?

What is an Anti-Suit Injunction?

An ASI is a court order that prevents a party from starting or continuing legal proceedings in another jurisdiction or forum. It is an equitable and discretionary remedy, meaning it is not available as a matter of right. The court will consider the circumstances of the case before deciding whether to grant an injunction.

An ASI is typically sought where a party brings proceedings in a foreign country in breach of an existing contractual agreement. The two most common scenarios are:

• Breach of an arbitration clause: If the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration, but one party instead brings a claim before a foreign court, the other party may seek an ASI to prevent the court proceedings from continuing and uphold the agreement to arbitrate.
• Breach of a jurisdiction clause: A contract may provide that the courts of a particular jurisdiction, such as those of England and Wales must hear disputes. If one party instead brings proceedings in another jurisdiction, such as New York, the other party may seek an ASI to enforce the agreed jurisdiction.

Stay of Proceedings vs Anti-Suit Injunction

An ASI differs from a stay of proceedings, which generally suspends proceedings before the court that granted the order. An ASI, by contrast, operates against a party to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in a foreign court or forum.

However, because an ASI can affect proceedings in another country, the court must also consider international comity, the principle that courts should respect the authority and proceedings of courts in other countries.

Legal Basis and Jurisdictional Differences

In England and Wales, the High Court’s power to grant an anti-suit injunction comes primarily from Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. This gives the court broad power to grant an injunction where it considers it “just and convenient.” The court will consider the contractual agreement and the circumstances surrounding the foreign proceedings. Where a party has agreed to arbitrate, the English courts place considerable weight on holding that party to its contractual promise.

The approach varies across jurisdictions. In UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that, in appropriate circumstances, an English court may restrain a party from continuing foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, where the agreement is governed by English law.

The Arbitration Act 2025 introduced the Law of the Arbitration Agreement (Section 6A), which establishes that, by default the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the arbitral seat, unless the parties explicitly agree otherwise.

Singapore also adopts a strongly pro-arbitration approach, and its courts can grant ASIs to protect arbitration agreements.

The EU takes a different approach to proceedings between Member States. EU law prevents the courts of one Member State from issuing an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings before another Member State’s courts. Since Brexit, England and Wales are no longer bound by these EU rules to the same extent, although the effectiveness of an English ASI within the EU can depend on whether the relevant Member State recognises or gives effect to the order.

In the United States, the position varies. Federal courts may grant ASIs in appropriate circumstances, but international comity and the particular circumstances of the case are important considerations.

Common Grounds for Granting an Anti-Suit Injunction

An ASI is a discretionary remedy, so the court will consider the circumstances of each case.

Breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause

This is one of the clearest grounds for an ASI. Where parties have agreed to resolve disputes through a particular court or by arbitration, but one party brings proceedings elsewhere in breach of that agreement, the court may restrain those proceedings. The English courts give considerable importance to ensuring that parties honour their contractual commitments.

Vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings

In some circumstances, an ASI may be available even without a relevant jurisdiction or arbitration agreement. This may arise where foreign proceedings are pursued in a way that is oppressive or amounts to an abuse of the court process. The court will also consider international comity.

Where damages would not be an adequate remedy

An ASI may be appropriate where allowing foreign proceedings to continue would cause harm that an award of damages cannot adequately address. The court will also consider international comity.

Parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes

Where substantially overlapping proceedings are underway in different jurisdictions, the risk of conflicting decisions may be relevant in some cases. However, this does not automatically justify an ASI.

Similarly, where parties have agreed to arbitration, the existence or risk of parallel proceedings does not justify refusing an ASI.

Procedural Requirements and Timing

An application for an ASI is usually made to the English court using an application notice, supported by evidence explaining why the injunction is needed. The application should identify the order sought and provide key documents, such as the relevant arbitration or jurisdiction clause and details of the foreign proceedings.

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, applications for interim remedies relating to proceedings outside England and Wales must follow the general application procedure and be supported by evidence.

The applicant must provide the court with a clear basis for granting the injunction. This may involve showing that foreign proceedings have been brought or are threatened in breach of a contractual agreement and explaining why the English court should intervene.

Timing is particularly important. An ASI can be sought before foreign proceedings begin if there is a sufficient threat, and also after proceedings have started. However, delay may affect the court’s decision, particularly if the applicant has already participated in the foreign proceedings. Where there is genuine urgency, the court can grant an interim injunction promptly and, where appropriate, without notifying the other party in advance.

For businesses facing parallel litigation, the practical message is clear: act promptly. Early advice can help determine whether an ASI is available and safeguard the business’s position.

Enforcing Anti-Suit Injunctions in Practice

An ASI targets the party bringing the foreign proceedings, not the foreign court. This means the English court cannot order the foreign court to halt the case. Instead, it orders the party to stop or refrain from commencing the foreign proceedings. If the party disregards the injunction, they may face contempt of court proceedings and potentially serious penalties.

Enforcement can become more difficult when the foreign court does not recognise the English order. The foreign proceedings may therefore continue even though the party has been ordered to stop. This is why businesses should consider not only whether an ASI can be obtained, but also how practical its enforcement will be.

The English courts have shown a willingness to use ASIs to protect contractual arbitration agreements. In Enka v Chubb, the English courts issued an ASI to prevent Chubb from pursuing proceedings in Russia that would have breached the arbitration agreement. The case illustrates how an ASI can enforce a party’s agreed dispute-resolution process.

Similarly, in Ust-Kamenogorsk v AES, the Supreme Court confirmed that it can grant an ASI to protect an arbitration agreement even before arbitration proceedings have commenced. This shows that the court can intervene to protect the parties’ contractual agreement before a dispute has progressed to arbitration.

For businesses, the key point is that an ASI can be an effective means of protecting an agreed dispute-resolution process, but its practical impact depends on the circumstances and the foreign court’s approach.

Anti-Enforcement Injunctions and Countermeasures

An anti-suit injunction can sometimes trigger a legal tug-of-war between jurisdictions. A party facing an ASI may ask another court to limit its effect. For example, it may seek an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent the other party from enforcing a foreign judgment or order. In some cases, a party may also seek an anti-anti-suit injunction in response to an ASI granted by another court.

This can complicate an international dispute. Courts in different countries may take different views on which court or tribunal should handle the dispute, or on whether an order from another country should be recognised or enforced. This can lead to additional proceedings, increasing costs, delay and uncertainty.

These remedies can therefore form part of the broader strategy for international litigation and arbitration. However, their availability and effectiveness depend on the law of the relevant jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case.

Limitations and Criticism of Anti-Suit Injunctions

Although anti-suit injunctions can be useful in cross-border disputes, they have practical limitations and can be controversial.

Limitations

• Jurisdiction over the party: An English court must have a proper basis for exercising jurisdiction over the party it is seeking to restrain.

• The foreign court is not bound: An ASI is directed at the party, not the foreign court. If the party ignores the order, the foreign court may proceed with the proceedings.
• Difficulties across jurisdictions: A foreign court may not recognise or give effect to an English ASI, complicating enforcement.
• International rules and comity: The availability and effectiveness of an ASI can be affected by international treaties and principles of comity. For example, EU law restricts ASIs between the courts of EU Member States, while the New York Convention supports enforcing arbitration agreements in appropriate cases.

Criticisms

• Interference with foreign courts: Critics argue that an ASI can interfere with another country’s judicial process and may be perceived as an overreach by the court granting it.
• Risk of escalation: An ASI can lead to further applications in other countries, including anti-anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions, thereby increasing costs and causing delays.
• Risk of tactical use: There is a concern that parties may use ASIs strategically to increase pressure on an opponent, delay proceedings or secure a more favourable forum.
• Recognition and enforcement: A foreign court may refuse to recognise or enforce an English ASI. This can leave parties facing conflicting court orders across jurisdictions and complicate the dispute.

Strategic Considerations for Litigants

When businesses face legal proceedings in foreign countries, they should carefully assess whether an ASI is appropriate for their circumstances. An ASI may be appropriate where proceedings have been brought or are threatened in breach of an agreed jurisdiction or arbitration clause. Its purpose is to protect the parties’ agreed arrangements and to prevent proceedings in a forum they have agreed not to use.

However, businesses should also be mindful of the other jurisdiction’s potential response. A foreign court may view the dispute differently or assess the effect of an English ASI differently, which could lead to further legal proceedings and costs. Before you decide to pursue an ASI, it is therefore important to weigh whether you are prepared for this kind of back-and-forth between different court systems.

The contract is an important part of the planning process. A carefully drafted jurisdiction or arbitration clause can provide greater certainty over where and how disputes should be resolved. Businesses should address these issues when entering into an international contract, rather than waiting for a dispute to arise.

If a dispute arises, businesses should also consider whether negotiation, mediation or arbitration could resolve it without further court proceedings. Early legal advice can help businesses assess the available options and the potential consequences of taking action in different jurisdictions.

Get Strategic Support for Anti-Suit Injunctions

Anti-suit injunctions can be a valuable tool for businesses facing litigation in a foreign court, particularly when those proceedings breach an agreed jurisdiction or arbitration clause. That said, they can also be complex, especially where several jurisdictions are involved and courts take different approaches to recognising and enforcing such injunctions.

Timing, jurisdiction and the legal basis for the application are all crucial. Acting quickly can help protect a business’s position, while a well-drafted contractual dispute-resolution clause can provide a stronger basis for seeking an injunction. Before settling on a strategy, businesses should carefully weigh the implications of pursuing action in different jurisdictions.

While an ASI can, under the right circumstances, halt another party’s legal action in a foreign court, its effectiveness depends on your specific situation, the relevant jurisdiction, and the legal basis for the injunction.

At Witan Solicitors, our Commercial Litigation team can help businesses understand where they stand, from reviewing jurisdiction and arbitration clauses to assessing foreign proceedings and the potential consequences of taking action across jurisdictions. If your business is facing proceedings in a foreign court, or you are concerned that a contractual dispute-resolution agreement may be breached, early advice can be crucial.

To discuss your circumstances and the options available, please contact us on 0300 303 2071 or by email.

Last Reviewed: Qarrar Somji, October 2026