Confirmation from Males J today in Nori Holdings Ltd & Ors v PJSC Bank Otkritie  EWHC 1343 (Comm) of what we all suspected: you can’t injunct EU / Lugano proceedings in support of arbitration. The facts aren’t that interesting. Essentially an ailing Russian bank was seeking to undo the effects of a debt restructuring agreement entered into with a number of its borrowers and their sureties, members of the O1 group. To that end it sued in Russia and Cyprus. The present claimants, borrowers and sureties, sought anti-suit injunctions on the basis that the claims were the subject of valid arbitration agreements. It got injunctions in respect of the Russian proceedings; we say no more.
As for the Cypriot proceedings, the bank understandably invoked West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA (Case C-185/07)  ECR I-00663 and its holding that any intra-EU anti-suit proceedings unacceptably infringed EU full faith and credit under the then Brussels I, not to mention EU courts’ powers to decide on their own jurisdiction. The claimants countered, as might be expected, with the slightly curious remarks of the Advocate-General in the Gazprom OAO case (Case C-536/13) that suggested Recital (12) in Brussels I Recast had cast doubt on the West Tankers holding. Males J subjected the reasoning of the Advocate-General to searching scrutiny at -. His conclusion, though judicious, was pretty blunt: the Advocate-General was simply wrong. There was no room for any inference of an intent to depart from West Tankers.
So now we know. Professors may have lost a useful examination question: but for the rest of us, we know where we stand. And a good thing too.