> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://internationalarbitrationobserver.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# An Award Is Not a Contract: Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Enforcement Stage
- URL: https://internationalarbitrationobserver.com/an-award-is-not-a-contract-anti-suit-injunctions-and-the-enforcement-stage/
- Published: 2026-09-21T22:03:22.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-21T22:03:22.000Z
- Author: Pierluigi Salvati
- Tags: Enforcement

An **anti-suit injunction** against a party invoking an arbitration clause? A fairly unusual angle.  
  
Last week, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance did exactly that in **Xiamen Xinjingdi v Eton Properties** \[2026\] HKCFI 5258, and I think the case is a useful lesson on how anti-suit injunctions can protect the **enforcement phase** of an arbitration.  
  
The short version. After winning a **CIETAC award** in 2006, the claimant spent years enforcing it in Hong Kong. The result was RMB 169m in damages, confirmed on appeal, with the Court of Final Appeal also rejecting the defendants' final challenge. The defendants then sued in Xiamen, in tort, claiming RMB 180m: in essence, the amount they had been ordered to pay. Their argument was that, by enforcing in Hong Kong, the claimant had circumvented the arbitration agreement.  
  
The court restrained the claim and ordered its **discontinuance**. Three points stood out for me.  
  
**1\. Award and contract are different things.** Enforcing an award is not enforcing the underlying agreement. It's a **separate cause of action**, governed by the law of the enforcing court. Much of the defendants' case rested on blurring the two.  
  
**2\. This was not a contractual ASI.** The basis was **bad faith**, **vexation and oppression**, **interference** with Hong Kong proceedings and judgments, and **issue estoppel**. The defendants argued this was a "single forum" case calling for extra caution. The judge applied that higher standard and still found it met. He also confirmed that vexation doesn't require Hong Kong to be the natural forum.  
  
**3\. The court judged conduct, not the foreign claim.** It expressly took no view on Xiamen or PRC law, even noting that a viable PRC cause of action might exist. On **comity**, the judge's view was that standing by while a foreign court is used to misuse or undo Hong Kong's own judgments would be the real discourtesy.  
  
One more note, on **timing**. The defendants fought in Hong Kong at every level for years before raising the argument. The judge is careful to say that a genuine claim, brought promptly and without equating award and contract, might have fared differently.  
  
For those of us who advise on arbitration, a good reminder that winning the award is only half of the work, and that the choice of **enforcement forum** deserves as much thought as the **seat**.