Interim and final injunctions

STOP PRESS: On 6 April 2025, amendments to Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25) will come into force. For guidance on the changes to Part 25 and Practice Directions 25A and 25B, see Q&A: Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025?

Note that the intention to restructure CPR 25, amend CPR 4 and revoke CPR PD 25A and CPR PD 25B from 6 April 2025 has been discussed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) for some time. For background to the upcoming changes, see News Analyses:

•
LNB News 20/12/2023 114—CPRC seeks views on proposed amendments to Part 25 of the CPR
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 July 2023 (item 6)
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 October 2023 (item 11)
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 December 2023 (item 8)
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—2 February 2024 (item 1)
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—10 May 2024 (item 6)
•
Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 June 2024 (item 3)
•
Minutes

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty (UniCredit v RusChemAlliance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Transactions at an undervalue, sham litigation and settlements, Marex tort, abuse of process (Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) v Marlborough Developments Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment concerned two sets of legal proceedings connected to allegations of serious dishonesty, fraudulent activity and abusive litigation tactics by various parties to obstruct the enforcement of a judgment. Dr Smith and Mr Ruhan had been long-term adversaries in prolonged and bitter litigation against each other. However, they formed the ‘unholiest of unholy alliances’ in colluding in a scheme to frustrate Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd’s (HPII’s) efforts to enforce a judgment obtained against Mr Ruhan for £102.26m. The scheme included companies controlled by Dr Smith fabricating litigation against Mr Ruhan leading to a default judgment for £850m, a fabricated settlement agreement and the transfer of assets to entities controlled by Dr Smith. The court found that the transactions were transactions at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), set aside the fraudulent default judgment, struck out the sham proceedings and issued injunctions to protect HPII’s judgment rights against further tortious interference. Written by Justin Perring, barrister, New Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—20 February 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the publication of the new model forms under CPR, the Supreme Court decision in Nasir v Zavarco Plc (doctrine of merger), the Court of Appeal decision in EE Ltd v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd (exclusions of liability) and a costs decision in Reeves v Frain (invalid damages based agreements); details of our most recently published content; dates for your diary and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

The Supreme Court holds that the doctrine of merger does not extend to declaratory judgments (Nasir v Zavarco Plc)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of merger is confined to ‘coercive judgments’ and does not extend to declaratory judgments. Jack Mitchell of Old Square Chambers comments on the implications of the judgment.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News