Enforcement

When Enforcement Gets Expensive: The Court of Appeal Says Enough

The English Court of Appeal has delivered an interesting procedural judgment in the long-running Yukos enforcement litigation.

In The Russian Federation v Hulley Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 1353, the Court ordered Russia to provide £975,000 in security for the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

The underlying proceedings concern enforcement in England of three arbitral awards rendered in the Netherlands, with an aggregate value of roughly US$50 billion plus interest.

The immediate issue was narrower: should Russia, as the appellant, be required to put up security for the costs of an appeal where there was a real risk that those costs would never be recovered?

The Court said yes. The respondents did not have to establish, through extensive expert evidence, that enforcement of a costs judgment against Russia would be impossible. In this particular case, the Court considered the risk of non-enforcement self-evident.

That conclusion rested on the combination of the parties involved, the history of the Yukos enforcement proceedings, Russia’s position towards the awards, the absence of meaningful assets in England and the broader Russian legal and geopolitical environment.

The Court was careful to confine the point to its facts. This is not a general rule that foreign States, or Russia in every case, should be required to provide security.

But perhaps the most striking part of the judgment comes at the end.

The respondents sought security based on estimated costs of approximately £3.64 million, including a £2 million brief fee for leading counsel. The Court was unimpressed.

The figures were described as “astonishing” and the Court rejected the proposition that seniority, excellence and market forces could justify such expenditure. It fixed security at £975,000.

Even in a case involving US$50 billion awards, the Court’s message on costs was remarkably simple: however much a party chooses to spend on its lawyers, the other side can only be expected to bear what is reasonable and proportionate.

When is a measure against a company a measure against the shareholder’s investment?

The English Court of Appeal has just given an important answer. In Republic of India v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 1358, handed down on 22 October, the Court dismissed India’s appeal and upheld the finding that RAKIA’s investment claim fell within the arbitration clause

When Two Courts Say “Don’t Pay” and “Pay”: Ralli Brothers, Foreign Injunctions and Arbitration

There are few things more interesting in international dispute resolution than a demand guarantee, a foreign injunction and two courts pulling in opposite directions. A recent decision of the English Commercial Court has produced a particularly good example. In Central Térmica de Temane SA v Banco Santander SA [2026] EWHC

Non-Signatories, Unfair Competition and the Reach of Anti-Suit Injunctions

Can you sidestep an arbitration clause by suing your counterparty’s affiliates? A recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance suggests that this is a risky strategy. In [2026] HKCFI 5453, Mimmie Chan J granted anti-suit injunctions restraining a party from pursuing proceedings in Mainland China

Can you be bound by an arbitration agreement you never signed — simply because you paid the freight?

In DZD v DZE [2026] SGHC 199, the Singapore High Court delivered a timely reminder: commercial conduct may evidence consent, but it cannot simply be made to stand in for it. The dispute arose from a demurrage claim. The shipowner obtained an arbitral award against a trader, relying on a

Read more

When is a measure against a company a measure against the shareholder’s investment?

When Two Courts Say “Don’t Pay” and “Pay”: Ralli Brothers, Foreign Injunctions and Arbitration

Non-Signatories, Unfair Competition and the Reach of Anti-Suit Injunctions

Can you be bound by an arbitration agreement you never signed — simply because you paid the freight?