Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Keynote Address by Professor Yeo Tiong Min at the SICC Seminar 2026
SICC Seminar 2026
Keynote Address
The Rise of Anti-Enforcement Injunctions
Tuesday, 13 January 2026
Professor Yeo Tiong Min SC
Introduction
1. The principles relating to the anti-suit injunction are well-established, although the law is still evolving and the boundaries are not crystal clear. In recent times, it has at least become clear that anti-suit injunctions to restrain breach of contract stands apart as a remedy to prevent the breach of a negative covenant in a jurisdiction agreement.1 Comity takes a back seat, but the equitable remedy remains discretionary, defeasible by waiver or undue delay. Non-contractual anti-suit injunctions may be issued for the prevention of abuse of process or for the protection of the fundamental public policies or judicial system and processes of the forum.
2. The anti-enforcement injunction2 (AEI) is a variant of the anti-suit injunction (ASI). The ASI aims to prevent a foreign judgment from coming into existence. The AEI is only triggered after the foreign judgment has been obtained. Its purpose is to prevent legal action to enforce the judgment. Both aim to stop legal processes in a foreign country, but at different points in the litigation timeline. The judicial perspective is generally that the AEI is more offensive to international comity than the ASI, because it is ordinarily up to the country where the enforcement is sought to determine the enforceability of the judgment, and because the prevention of enforcement causes wastage of judicial resources invested in the adjudication. It is seen as particularly intrusive when the AEI purports to have effect in the country of origin of the foreign judgment. There is an alternative perspective from some arbitration circles that an AEI is less offensive to international comity than an ASI to protect arbitration agreements because while the ASI is directed at proceedings before the court the AEI does not interfere with the adjudication itself but only kicks in after the court has finished its adjudication.3 This view needs a reality check.
Difference between ASI and AEI
3. One general question that arises is how differently the AEI should be treated from the ASI. Is the difference one of kind or of degree? It is clear that greater caution should be exercised with applications for AEI. Thus, early case law from England indicated the AEI would only apply in the “rare” and “exceptional” case.4 But what does this really mean? The Singapore Court of Appeal has taken this to mean that additional exceptional factors need to be established beyond the standard requirements of the ASI.5 However, the English Court of Appeal has held that there is no additional jurisdictional requirement of “exceptional circumstances”, criticising such a requirement as “vague and somewhat elastic criterion”.6 In other words, the same principles of the ASI are to be applied. It remains to be seen, however, whether this represents merely a different way of organising the law, or a real difference of principle that could lead to different practical results. On the Singapore approach, the categories are not closed, but new categories are created only with great caution.7 Only two grounds are acceptable at this point: judgments obtained by fraud, and judgments obtained without the knowledge of the judgment debtor.8 On the English approach, the courts are, at least outside the contractual context, highly sensitive to the need for caution in granting AEI injunctions.
The Case Law
Fraud
4. The oldest reported case of a successful AEI application is Ellerman Lines, Ltd v Read.9 A British subject agreed under an English contract not to take legal proceedings against a ship unless certain conditions were satisfied. He breached the contract and lied to the Turkish court to obtain a judgment against the counterparty. The English Court of Appeal allowed a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction. It was clear that the foreign judgment had been obtained by fraud, and the case stood for the proposition that the AEI may be available to prevent the worldwide enforcement of judgments obtained by fraud. Fraud was accepted by the Singapore Court of Appeal as an exceptional factor that would justify an AEI.10
5. Fraud was the basis of the AEI in the long-running litigation between Kea Investments Ltd (“Kea”) and Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (“Wikeley”) and related parties. Wikeley had obtained a default judgment from a Kentucky court against Kea for damages of some US$136m for breach of a contract governed by the law of Kentucky and containing an exclusive choice of Kentucky court clause. Wikeley was a New Zealand corporation controlled by an Australian businessman with extensive business connections with New Zealand. Kea was a BVI corporation owned by a New Zealand businessman. Kea failed to set aside the judgment in Kentucky because notice had been served on its agent who failed to notify Kea. Pending an appeal against this decision, Kea sued Wikeley and other parties in the New Zealand court for the tort of conspiracy, alleging that the contract never existed in the first place and that Wikeley had obtained the Kentucky judgment by fraud. Kea also sought an AEI. The High Court found in Kea’s favour and granted the AEI on the basis of fraud.11 The Court of Appeal did not disturb the factual findings of the High Court, but reversed the decision on the AEI, on the basis that as a matter of international comity, the New Zealand court ought to wait for the outcome of the Kentucky appeal before making a decision on the AEI.12 The Supreme Court of New Zealand allowed the appeal and restored the AEI on 10 November 2025, with reasons pending.13 This short judgment made an intriguing note to effect that the findings of the High Court that the contract was forged and the Kentucky judgment was obtained by fraud were not disturbed by the Court of Appeal. In principle, it is difficult to understand the approach of the Court of Appeal. The injunction should either be granted as soon as the basis for it has been established, or not at all. Whether the judgment had been obtained by fraud according to New Zealand law is not going to depend on the outcome of the appeal in Kentucky. It merely delays the injunction to the prejudice of the applicant, and it is difficult to see how it improves international relations because it is just waiting to tell the foreign appellate court that it is wrong.
6. Fraud was also accepted as the basis of the AEI in the Australian court. Kea had successfully obtained an interim AEI against the controller of Wikeley from the court in Queensland,14 and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.15 The jurisdiction was invoked under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth),16 and the injunction was sought to support the proceedings in the New Zealand court. The Singapore court has similar powers to grant interim injunctions in support of foreign proceedings under s 4(10A) of the Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed). This provision was introduced in 2021,17 primarily directed at Mareva injunctions,18 but the court is given statutory power to grant “interim relief of any kind”.19
7. However, fraud was not sufficient to justify an AEI in the US case of Chevron Corp v Naranjo.20 The tenor of the judgment was strongly opposed to the granting of AEI generally, because it is generally up to the country where enforcement is sought to determine that issue. The case, however, turned on the interpretation of a state statute on the recognition of foreign judgments, which was held not to extend to the granting of AEIs. It remains to be seen whether alternative arguments based on the inherent equitable power may succeed where the argument based on statute has failed.
Breach of Contract
8. While Ellerman Lines, Ltd v Read21 had traditionally been justified on the basis of fraud, modern English cases have resuscitated the second line of reasoning in the case based on breach of contract. In response to various sanctions on Russian interests after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Russia passed laws directing its courts not to give effect to clauses in contracts that would take matters out of the Russian court, on the basis that these clauses cause injustice to Russian subjects. In Google LLC v Nao Tsargrad Media,22 Russian judgments had been obtained against Google for breach of contract, in breach of various London arbitration clauses and exclusive choice of English court clauses in English law contracts. The orders were for payment of “astreinte”, cumulative civil penalties for failing to comply with court orders to perform the contracts. Google’s defence the sanctions applied under English law was ignored by the Russian courts. At the time of the English judgment the Russian orders for astreinte amounted to approximately £102 nonillion23 – £102,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, nearly a quintillion times (1 followed by 18 zeros) the estimated combined GDP of the world economy). The English court accepted that breach of contract was an independent justification for a worldwide AEI and granted it accordingly.
9. Many ASI’s and AEI’s have been granted by the English commercial courts for breach of contract recently because of litigation arising out of the sanctions on Russia. Indeed, as it is well-known that the Russian courts are mandated by law to ignore arbitration and choice of court clauses that take matters out of the Russian courts, many claimants have sought ASI and anticipatory AEI at the outset, and the courts have granted them.24 The justification for this practice is the court taking judicial notice that the Russian court would not allow the Russian party to withdraw proceedings even if it wants to comply with the English court’s ASI, and thus the Russian judgment would be an inevitable outcome. A dictum from Foxton J in Barclays Bank plc v PSJC Sovcombank that an anticipatory AEI would be less offensive since they are granted before the foreign court has given judgment25 has probably emboldened at least the first instance courts in England. The assumption is that a foreign court given advance notice that there could be personal restraints on the enforcement of its judgment would be less offended than if the restraints came without forewarning. If this is right, it is arguable that an ASI could serve equally well as a warning shot.
10. A similar result was obtained in the US. A worldwide AEI was granted upon the application of Google to the Californian court in Google LLC v Nao Tsargrad Media26 to prevent the enforcement of a Russian judgment that had been obtained in breach of an exclusive choice of Californian court agreement. There were, however, two notable points of departure from the English approach. First, the basis of the injunction was found in an implied obligation in the choice of court agreement – under Californian governing law – that the parties had agreed not to enforce any judgment obtained in breach of the exclusive choice of court agreement. Second, the worldwide injunction did not apply to the country of origin of the foreign judgment itself, Russia. The court thought it was too much of an overreach against international comity to allow such operation of the injunction.
11. If the basis of the AEI in this instance is the contractual agreement, then contractual analysis must be engaged. In most cases of ASI and AEI, the law of the forum is also the law governing the choice of court or arbitration clause. There is a difference between agreeing not to bring proceedings in a foreign court and an agreement not to enforce a judgment from that court obtained in breach of contract. If there is an agreement not to enforce the judgment of the foreign court, it is a primary obligation that is being sought to be enforced.27 In Anglo-Singapore law, negative covenants in a contract are enforced almost as of course,28 and this reasoning is applied to ASI.29 This is why the ASI is granted unless strong cause is shown otherwise, without a need to show that damages are an inadequate remedy. But if there is only an agreement not to sue in the foreign court, then the injunction to prevent the enforcement of the resulting foreign judgment is not an injunction to prevent the breach of a negative covenant, but an injunction to put the innocent party in the position as if the contract had not been breached. It is analogous to the mandatory injunction to undo the consequences of breach under the law of remedies.
12. English case law is content to justify the AEI on the basis of the breach of a promise not to bring proceedings in the foreign court. The rationale is explained in Barclays Bank v VEB.RF:30
The Russian proceedings should not have been started, and should not be continued with, and any judgment obtained in the Russian proceedings should not be enforced because by starting or continuing the proceedings and seeking to enforce any judgment in such proceedings, the respondent has acted deliberately in breach of contract.
13. Professor Adrian Briggs makes a similar argument, labelling the judgment obtained in breach of contract as “the evil fruit of a corrupt tree”.31 The Indian court has found similar justification. In Honasa Consumer Ltd v RSM General Trading LLC,32 the New Delhi High Court granted an AEI to prevent the enforcement of a Dubai judgment which had been obtained in breach of an exclusive choice of Indian court agreement, and which had applied Dubai law to a contract containing a choice of Indian law clause. The court explained:33
Allowing the respondent to [enforce the foreign judgment] would not only amount to condoning breach of [contract] with impunity, but would also permit the respondent to reap a windfall from the consequence of such breach.
14. One difficulty with the windfall argument is the compensatory principle in contract law. The normal remedy for breach of contract is compensation.34 The removal of an advantage gained by the contract breaker35 is an extraordinary remedy, which under Singapore contract law may be an exceptional remedy confined to the protection of governmental interests.36
15. There is a further question whether the AEI is always an appropriate remedy for breach of a jurisdiction or arbitration agreement, in particular whether alternatives like damages,37 defence to recognition and enforcement within the forum,38 and declaration39 may be adequate and less intrusive remedies. It may be that there is an implied term anyway not to enforce the any court order resulting from the breach, but that is a matter for the law governing the choice of court or arbitration agreement, and legal systems may have different standards for implying terms. Nevertheless, this is a difficulty that could easily be avoided by drafting express terms.
16. The analysis will be different if there is an extant ASI, for obtaining a judgment in contravention of an ASI is clearly contempt of court, and it is an established principle to disallow a party from benefitting from the acts in contempt of court. In such cases, the AEI stands on a surer footing when based on contempt of court arising from the breach of the ASI than on the breach of the jurisdiction agreement itself.
17. Further, if the AEI is based on the enforcement of a contract, then it is difficult to see why the enforcement should stop at the door of the country that granted the judgment. It is always a question of interpretation what exactly the contractual undertaking is, but if the contractual agreement is not to enforce a Russian judgment in Russia, then the injunction should be operative there as well. Indeed, on one occasion, the French court had recognised and enforced a foreign anti-suit injunction not to sue in France because the parties had made a valid contractual pact not to do so.40
18. In contrast, the Singapore Court of Appeal has expressed the view that an AEI could not be justified by party autonomy.41 Similarly, the New Zealand Court of Appeal reserved its opinion on granting an AEI on the basis of protection of contractual rights.42 From the contractual perspective, a negative covenant not to enforce a judgment should be enforced by injunction, subject to international comity considerations. If international comity does not by itself stand in the way of enforcement by ASI, it is difficult to see why it should do so for AEI. There may be considerations of international comity on particular facts that could apply to either an ASI or AEI, eg, delay in the application for the remedy that leads to wastage of judicial resources.43 It is not uncommon in complex multi-part commercial litigation for parties to reach a settlement even after a judgment has been obtained,44 and it will not be unusual for such a settlement contract to contain undertakings not to enforce the judgment. It is difficult to see why such a negative covenant45 should not be prima facie enforceable by injunction.
Beyond Fraud and Breach of Contract
19. Beyond the prevention of fraud and the protection of contractual rights, the use of the AEI has been very restrained. So far, they have been used only to protect the judicial processes and sovereignty of the forum.
20. The first case of an AEI being granted by the English court outside of fraud and breach of contract was SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd.46 The defendant had sued the claimant in the English courts for certain claims involving copyright infringement and lost. The defendant then sued the claimant for similar claims in the North Carolina court and won. The enforcement of the North Carolina judgment in England was denied because of issue estoppel, abuse of process and contravention of English public policy, all arising out of the prior English judgment. The claimant then sought to enforce the North Carolina judgment in California. Enforcement procedures under Californian law included assignment orders compelling the claimant to assign specified assets to the defendant, and turnover orders compelling the claimant to transfer specified assets to an officer of the court. These are in personam orders applicable to property anywhere in the world. The claimant succeeded in obtaining a worldwide AEI from the English High Court, but the order was varied by the Court of Appeal. Here there was a difference of view between the US and English courts on the substantive matter. The US judgment says the claimant is liable, but the English judgment says the claimant is not liable, in respect of the same claims. The English Court of Appeal allowed the AEI to stand only with regard to the claimant’s assets within the court’s own territorial jurisdiction. Insofar as the enforcement of the California judgment47 purported to affect property within the jurisdiction of the English court under which the claimant is protected by an English judgment, that enforcement would infringe the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
21. An AEI has been granted to protect the judicial processes of the forum from foreign interference. In WWRT Ltd v Serhiy Tyshchenko,48 a Ukrainian expert witness had testified on the content of Ukrainian law in English proceedings. The defendant in the English proceedings sued the witness in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian court ordered the witness to refute the testimony made in the English proceedings. The English court allowed the AEI because the enforcement of the Ukrainian judgment would prejudice the integrity of judicial proceedings in England. Delay was not seen to be an obstacle, as the court accepted as reasonable the explanation that the application for the AEI was not made earlier because the parties thought the Ukrainian proceedings would be dismissed as being unmeritorious.
AEI for Local Judgments/Awards
22. An AEI may apply to the forum’s own orders. In Federal Government of Nigeria v Williams,49 a default judgment of the English court was being challenged as being obtained by fraud. The English default judgment had been brought to New York for enforcement. The New York court stayed its proceedings pending the outcome of the application for the AEI in England. The English court granted an interim AEI to prevent the overseas enforcement of the judgment pending the outcome of the challenge in the English court. The basis of the AEI was the allegation the judgment had been obtained by fraud.
23. In contrast, in Vietnam National Industry – Energy Group v Joint Stock Co (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport,50 the Singapore court refused to grant an AEI to prevent the worldwide enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award pending the outcome of proceedings to set it aside in the Singapore court. Various arguments that the enforcement of the award elsewhere before the outcome of the challenge was known would be a breach of contract or breach of previous court orders were rejected as unfounded on the facts. The argument that the setting aside application was likely to succeed was also rejected, on the basis that under the New York Convention, the enforcement court may choose to enforce an award even if it has been set aside by the seat court. The AEI application was not based on setting aside the award as having been procured by fraud. It might have made a difference if the application was to set aside the award for fraud, and the allegations met the required standard of proof. Prevention of fraud is a powerful reason for acting.
Strategic Uses of AEI
24. The AEI can be used as a defence to a foreign ASI in order to protect proceedings in the forum. One example is the AEI granted by the Indian court in response to an ASI from the Singapore court. In Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings,51 the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court52 to prevent a party from commencing court proceedings in India in breach of an arbitration agreement. The Singapore court took the view that the subject matter of the dispute (minority oppression action) was arbitrable under Singapore law governing the arbitration agreement and it was not against the public policy of the Singapore seat and forum. On the other hand, the Indian forum took the view that the dispute was not arbitrable under Indian law and that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of its court. The injuncted party commenced proceedings in India and sought an AEI to prevent the enforcement of the Singapore ASI. The Indian proceedings were found by the Singapore court to be in contempt of the Singapore ASI.53 In spite of this, the Indian proceedings continued and the Indian courts proceeded to grant an AEI against the Singapore ASI.54 The ASI and AEI injunctions essentially put the parties in a position of stalemate.
25. The anticipatory AEI has also been used to reinforce an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) of the forum.55 The AEI is triggered if the foreign ASI is obtained in spite of the AASI of the forum. There is a further possibility of an anti-anti-enforcement injunction (AAEI) to prevent the enforcement of an AEI.56 For example, an ASI application may include an anti-anti-anti-suit injunction (AAASI) to prevent an AASI application in a foreign court. These days, it may also include an AEI to prevent the enforcement of the foreign AASI. But the foreign court may also grant an AEI to prevent the enforcement of the forum’s ASI, so the forum may also be asked to issue an AAEI to prevent the enforcement of the foreign AEI. This is not a new problem, but the use of new weapons in a familiar battle setting.
Conclusion
26. The last quinquennium has witnessed the dramatic awakening of the anti-enforcement injunction from a long hibernation, in large part accelerated by disruptions to global businesses due to geopolitical tensions caused by the war in Ukraine. I propose the following thoughts for further consideration:
a. The AEI has the same foundation as the ASI, and the applicable principles should be the same or at least very similar. There is no doubt that the AEI should not be given as a matter of routine, and there must be strong justification for it. There is a question whether the difference between the Singapore and English approaches is semantic or real.
b. Given the categorical approach under Singapore law, there is room to develop categories beyond fraud and judgments obtained without the knowledge of the judgment debtor.
c. In my view, the breach of a negative covenant in a valid contract provides a secure foundation for an AEI. The observation by the Singapore Court of Appeal that party autonomy is an inadequate justification57 should be revisited.
d. The use of the AEI as a remedy to repair the consequences of a breach of contract is justifiable, but there is a need to consider the development and use of alternative and less intrusive remedies, including declarations, defence to enforcement within the forum, and damages for breach of contract.
e. Beyond contractual situations, even greater caution should be exercised, because the court is no longer protecting private rights, but operating purely in the realm of regulation of international procedure.
f. The notion of abuse of process in the context of international litigation is useful, but it needs to take reference from the protection of fundamental public policies and the integrity of the judicial system and processes of the forum. The former could include the protection against fraud and surprise,58 and the latter could include contempt of the forum court’s own orders (especially an ASI),59 preventing interference with its judicial processes,60 and protection of the jurisdiction or judgments of the forum.61
g. As in the case of the ASI, there is a need to establish sufficient interest for the forum to grant the injunction. Sufficient interest to protect private rights should be established by normal rules of jurisdiction. Sufficient interest to prevent abuse of process needs a close connection with the forum to justify action by the forum court. The protection of fundamental policies and integrity of judicial system and processes of the forum should ordinarily provide sufficient connection.
YEO Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa)
Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law
Yong Pung How School of Law
Singapore Management University
(1) The contractual basis of the anti-suit injunction to prevent breach of arbitration or jurisdiction agreement figures most prominently in the UK Supreme Court decision in Unicredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] 3 WLR 659. The enforcement of contractual rights with anti-suit injunctions is evident in recent Singapore authorities: Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 732 at [67]-[68], [74]; VKC v VJZ [2021] 2 SLR 753 at [16] and [18]; VEW v VEV [2022] 2 SLR 380 at [43]; Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti – CMC di Revenna, Italy v Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu [2025] SGHC(I) 16 at [26]; Finaport Pte Ltd v Techteryx Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 10. Cf John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428. The significance of party autonomy in the enforcement of jurisdiction agreements, whether in the exercise of the forum’s own jurisdiction or for anti-suit injunctions, was emphasised in Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 1271 at [119].
(2) See generally, Hannah L Bauxbam & Ralf Michaels, “Anti-Enforcement Injunctions” (2024) 56 NYU J Intl Law and Politics 101.
(3) ICC Case No 17176, Final Award [2016] 41 YB Comm Arb 86–126.
(4) Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL (No 3) [2008] EWCA Civ 625, [2009] QB 503 at [94].
(5) Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1) at [67], [97-[99], and [116].
(6) SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599 at [92]-[93].
(7) Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL (No 3) (n 4) at [113].
(8) Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1) at [105], [113], [114(d)].
(9) [1928] 2 KB144.
(10) Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1) at [111]-[113].
(11) Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 (interlocutory); [2023] NZHC 3260 (final).
(12) Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2025] 1 NZLR 901. See further Maria Hook, “Fraud in a foreign court as a basis for anti-enforcement relief”, https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/conflicts/fraud-in-a-foreign-court-as-a-basis-for-anti-enforcement-relief/.
(13) [2025] NZSC 156.
(14) Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2023] QSC 215.
(15) Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] QCA 201.
(16) Ss 25 and 26.
(17) Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021, s 11.
(18) Cf Allenger, Shiona v Pelletier, Olga [2022] 3 SLR 353 at [148]-[154].
(19) Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed), s 4(10D) (excluding warrant for arrest of property and provisions for obtaining evidence).
(20) 667 F3d 232, 243 (2d Cir 2012).
(21) (n 9).
(22) [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm).
(23) Ibid at [43].
(24) Barclays Bank plc v PSJC Sovcombank [2024] EWHC 1338 (Comm); Barclays Bank v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 225 (Comm); JP Morgan Securities plc v VTB Bank PJSC [2025] EWHC 1368; Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1144; Airbus Canada Ltd Partnership v Joint Stock Co Ilyushin Finance Co [2024] EWHC 790 (Comm).
(25) [2024] EWHC 1338 (Comm) at [13].
(26) USDC ND California, Case No 5:24-cv-05423-EJD, 31 March 2025.
(27) See further, Tiong Min Yeo, “Foreign Judgments and Contracts: The Anti-Enforcement Injunction” in Andrew Dickinson and Ed Peel (eds), A Conflict of Laws Companion: Essays in Honour of Adrian Briggs (Oxford: OUP, 2022), ch 10.
(28) Doherty v Allman (1878) 3 APP Cas 709, 719-720; Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269; RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing Robin [2017] 2 SLR 997 at [35]-[44]
(29) Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd v Xiang Da Marine Pte Ltd [2019] EWHC 2284 (Comm) at [18]. On the other hand, the reference to the lack of judicial discretion in the award of such remedy in Doherty v Allman (n 28) has been described as an oversimplification at least in the context of anti-suit injunctions: Skype Technologies SA v Kasesalu [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch) at [29]–[31] and Hamilton-Smith v CMS Cameron McKenna LLP [2016] EWHC 1115 (Ch) at [71]. This is because of the procedural dimension in which the injunction operates in this context.
(30) [2024] EWHC 225 (Comm) at [19].
(31) Adrian Briggs, “Submission to a Russian Court: Google v Tsargrad” [2025] LMCLQ 235 at 237.
(32) HC, New Delhi, 20 Aug 2024.
(33) Ibid, at [26], emphasis added.
(34) The compensatory principle in damages for breach of contract was underscored recently in Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd [2021] 1 SLR 631.
(35) A-G v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268.
(36) Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boon Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655 at [254].
(37) Expectation damages are available as a matter of English contract law: Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWCA Civ 1010, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 544. Singapore law allows for reliance damages (Tradewaves v Standard Chartered Bank [2019] SGHC 93, [289]-[293]), but recovery of the expectation measure has not yet been addressed. Cf Justice Belinda Ang, “Anti-suit Injunctions in Maritime Disputes: A Trend That Threatens To Be Out of Control?” [2022] JMJ 50 at [46]-[80]; Chee Ho Tham, “Damages for breach of English jurisdiction clauses: more than meets the eye” [2004] LMCLQ 46; Nik Yeo and Daniel Tan, “Damages for Breach of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses” in Sarah Worthington (ed), Commercial Law and Commercial Practice (Oxford: Hart 2003), ch 14; Daniel Tan, “Damages for Breach of Forum Selection Clauses, Principled Remedies, and Control of International Civil Litigation” (2005) 40 Tex Int’l LJ 623; Albert Dinelli, “The Limits on the Remedy of Damages for Breach of Jurisdiction Agreements: The Law of Contract Meets Private International Law” (2015) 38 Melb Univ LR 1023;
(38) Breach of agreement is a defence to recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment under English law: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 32. In Singapore, it is a defence under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed), s 5(4)(b), but whether it is a defence under common law is unclear.
(39) ED&F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto (No 2) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 429; Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1); Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm); Piraeus Court of Appeal Nr 89/ 31.01.2020 (noted by Apostolos Anthimo at https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/from-anti-suit-injunctions-to-quasi-anti-suit-injunctions-and-declaratory-relief-for-breach-of-a-choice-of-court-agreement-a-whiter-shade-of-pale/).
(40) In Beverage International, ex Zone Brands Europe v In Zone Brands Inc, Cass 1e civ, Oct 14, 2009, noted by Gilles Cuniberti in https://conflictoflaws.net/2009/french-court-agrees-with-u-s-anti-suit-injunction/.
(41) Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1) at [104].
(42) Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd (n 12) at fn158.
(43) Undue delay defeated AEI applications in Ecobank Transnational Inc v Tanoh [2015] EWCA 1309 and Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (n 1).
(44) In Bank St Petersburg OSJC v Akhangelsky [2014]1 WLR 4360, there was such a settlement agreement not to enforce a Russian judgment allegedly procured by fraud until the outcome of the challenge in the English court, but the court relied on the fraud ground to grant an interim AEI.
(45) If such a settlement agreement falls within the Singapore Convention on Mediation, the obligation would be enforceable as if it were a court order.
(46) (n 6).
(47) The California judgment was, strictly speaking, a judgment on a (North Carolina) judgment and might have met with objection if enforcement had been sought in the English court, but that issue was not before the court.
(48) [2023] EWHC 2043 (Ch).
(49) [2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm).
(50) [2025] SGHC 180.
(51) [2023] 1 SLR 349.
(52) [2021] SGHC 244.
(53) WestBridge Venture II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal [2024] 3 SLR 332.
(54) Anupam Mittal v People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd (11 Sep 2023, High Court, Bombay, Suit No 95 of 2021), and In the matter of Anupam Mittal v People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench, CA/392/2023 in CP92/(MB)2021, Order of 15 September 2023 (the latter also included an anti-arbitration injunction). For a similar use of the AEI, see also Interdigital Technology Corp v Xiaomi Corp IA 8772/2020 in CS (Comm) 295/ 2020 (Delhi High Court, 9 October 2020).
(55) Eg, Warner Bros Discovery Inc v Nokia Corp [2025] EWHC 2888 (Pat); Magomedov v PJSC Transneft [2024] EWHC 1176.
(56) See, eg, 9REN Holding SARL v Kingdom of Spain, No 19-cv-01871, 2023 WL 2016933, at *1 (DDC Feb 15, 2023), discussed in Hannah L Bauxbam & Ralf Michaels, “Anti-Enforcement Injunctions”(2024) 56 NYU J Intl Law and Politics 101 at 116.
(57) (n 41).
2026/01/19
Share this page:
