The appellant, Renaissance Securities, was a Cypriot company which entered into six investment service agreements, each governed by English law and with a seat in London, with the defendant Russian companies. A dispute arose, and the defendants requested the appellant return assets. The appellant refused on the sole basis it considered the defendants subject to sanctions and sought an anti-suit injunction to block the defendants from suing its affiliate company in a foreign jurisdiction in relation to the investment service agreements.
Lord Justice Singh, giving the main judgment, dismissed the appeal, in Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and others [2025] EWCA Civ 369.
Singh LJ referred to the dicta of Lord Bingham in Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, on whether to grant an anti-suit injunction. Lord Bingham had said that such relief is discretionary in nature and for that discretion to be exercised, ‘the court must have the fullest possible knowledge and understanding of all the circumstances of the litigation and the parties to it’.
Lord Justice Males, agreeing with Singh LJ, said: ‘I am left with the distinct impression that this court is being invited to grant an anti-suit injunction while being deliberately kept in the dark.’
Lord Justice Phillips said the appellant had not ‘disclosed the documents or provided the information’ needed to understand certain crucial matters, ‘when it is a reasonable inference that it could do so’. He said it was ‘therefore unnecessary to decide whether an injunction would otherwise be justified… I prefer not to express any view of the merits of those issues, not least because, due to the lack of proper explanation by the appellant, the facts relevant to their determination are far from clear’.
