Key Takeaway

The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont SpA and MT Russia LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 5 marks a significant development in the English courts’ supervisory role over arbitration. For the first time, the Court has upheld the use of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a tribunal’s peremptory order granting anti-suit relief.

This decision signals a clear willingness by the English courts to deploy their coercive powers in support of tribunal-issued relief, particularly in the increasingly fraught landscape of sanctions-driven disputes and parallel foreign proceedings.

For parties engaged in London-seated arbitration, the message is straightforward: tribunal orders are no longer soft power. With the backing of the court, they carry real consequences.

How is the Anti-Suit Injunction Landscape Shifting in UK Arbitration?

Anti-suit injunctions are not new. The English courts have historically granted them under Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain proceedings brought in breach of arbitration agreements.

However, the context in which these applications arise has evolved. Since 2020, amendments to Russian procedural law, commonly referred to as the Lugovoi Law, have enabled Russian courts to assert jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned parties and to restrain foreign arbitrations. This has led to a surge in tactical litigation designed to derail London-seated proceedings.

Against that backdrop, claimants have increasingly sought urgent anti-suit relief from the English courts. What NW2 v Tecnimont introduces is a credible alternative: obtaining that relief from the arbitral tribunal first and then invoking Section 42 to compel compliance.

How can Peremptory Orders Act as an Enforcement Mechanism?

Peremptory orders sit at the heart of the decision. Under Sections 40 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, tribunals may issue binding directions and, where those are ignored, escalate to peremptory orders requiring compliance within a specified timeframe.

Traditionally, the tribunal’s enforcement options have been limited adverse inferences, cost consequences, or proceeding in default. These are meaningful, but not always sufficient, particularly where a party is actively pursuing foreign proceedings in defiance of the arbitration agreement.

Section 42 fills that gap. It allows a party, with the tribunal’s permission, to apply to the court for an order enforcing the peremptory direction. Crucially, a court order carries the threat of contempt, bringing with it the possibility of fines, asset seizure, or even imprisonment.

What the Court of Appeal has now confirmed is that this mechanism extends to anti-suit relief. A tribunal’s order restraining foreign proceedings can therefore be converted into a court-backed injunction with real force.

What Were the Court of Appeal’s Key Findings in NW2 v Tecnimont?

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision to enforce the tribunal’s peremptory orders against NW2.

Three aspects of the judgment stand out.

• First, the Court confirmed that a tribunal’s power to issue peremptory orders is not narrowly confined. It applies to any failure to comply with the tribunal’s directions, not just procedural matters. That includes orders designed to uphold the integrity of the arbitration itself.

• Second, the Court rejected the argument that anti-suit relief falls outside what is “necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct” of the arbitration. On the contrary, compliance with tribunal orders is inherently necessary, and restraining parallel or disruptive proceedings will often be essential.

• Third, the Court made clear that Section 42 provides a direct route for enforcing those obligations. Once the statutory requirements are met, the court’s role is supportive, not supervisory, and there is limited scope to revisit the merits of the tribunal’s decision.

The underlying principle is straightforward: parties cannot ignore tribunal orders with impunity.

What are the Strategic Implications for Disputes Practitioners?

For disputes lawyers and their clients, the decision has immediate practical consequences.

Parties now face a choice. They can apply directly to the court under Section 37 or proceed via the tribunal and rely on Section 42 for enforcement. The latter route may offer procedural and tactical advantages, particularly where the tribunal is already seized of the dispute.

The ability to convert tribunal orders into court orders strengthens a party’s hand. It raises the stakes for non-compliance and may deter counterparties from pursuing parallel proceedings in hostile jurisdictions.

By limiting the court’s willingness to revisit the merits of the tribunal’s order, the decision reduces the scope for delay tactics. Once a peremptory order is in place, the focus shifts quickly to enforcement.

The decision reinforces the importance of engaging proactively with the tribunal at an early stage. Securing robust orders, and escalating them where necessary, can now form part of a coherent enforcement strategy.

How are English Courts Adopting a More Assertive Supervisory Role?

The English courts have long positioned themselves as supportive of arbitration. What this decision demonstrates is a more assertive form of that support.

Section 42 is a mechanism through which the court can amplify the authority of the tribunal and ensure that arbitration agreements are respected in practice, not just in principle.

In an environment where cross-border disputes are increasingly shaped by sanctions, geopolitics and jurisdictional conflict, that matters.

What is the Future of Anti-Suit Enforcement in London-Seated Arbitration?

NW2 v Tecnimont is a clear statement of intent. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that tribunal orders, particularly those aimed at preserving the integrity of the arbitral process, will be backed by the full coercive power of the English courts where necessary.

For parties arbitrating in London, this expands the enforcement toolkit and sharpens strategic decision-making. Whether to go to the tribunal first or directly to the court will depend on a careful assessment of timing, leverage and risk.

Please contact the International Arbitration team at Barnes Law for advice on cross-border enforcement and anti-suit injunctions.

Authored by Barnes Law Managing Partner, Yulia Barnes

‍