Establishing Ireland’s Anti‑Suit and Anti‑Enforcement Injunction Jurisdiction to Protect Insolvency Proceedings and the Court’s Process

Commentary on GTLK Europe DAC (In Liquidation) v Companies Act 2014 [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 524

Introduction

In this landmark decision, the High Court of Ireland (Mulcahy J) delivers the first detailed Irish articulation of the principles governing anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, especially within the context of liquidation supervised by the Irish courts. The applicants, Julian Moroney and Damien Murran as joint liquidators of GTLK Europe DAC and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (together “the Companies”), sought relief against Joint Stock Company “State Transport Leasing Company” (JSC), a Russian state-owned entity and the ultimate parent in the group structure.

The central controversy stems from GTLK Europe Group’s assets—principally a large aircraft fleet—and purported pledge agreements in favour of JSC dated 29 March 2022. After the Companies were wound up by order of the High Court on 31 May 2023, the liquidators successfully obtained orders (the “pledge orders”) declaring the pledge agreements void and/or voidable, with the Court of Appeal affirming that JSC had submitted to the Irish jurisdiction and dismissing JSC’s appeal; the Supreme Court refused leave.

Notwithstanding those Irish orders, JSC prosecuted multiple proceedings in Russia: (i) an anti-suit injunction from the Yamal court restraining steps concerning the pledge agreements; (ii) three arbitrations before the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs resulting in awards upholding pledge validity and JSC’s foreclosure/ownership; and (iii) Moscow proceedings seeking a mandatory injunction compelling the liquidators to revoke correspondence asserting ownership and to desist from seeking recognition of the Irish orders. The liquidators sought Irish anti-suit and anti-enforcement relief to restrain JSC’s pursuit and reliance upon those Russian processes.

The decision resolves whether and how the Irish courts can restrain, in personam, a party properly subject to their jurisdiction from prosecuting or enforcing foreign proceedings that undermine Irish judgments and the liquidation process governed by Irish law under the Recast Insolvency Directive (EU) 2015/848.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court held that Irish courts possess an in personam jurisdiction to grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions to protect the integrity of their processes and to safeguard Irish liquidation proceedings. This jurisdiction lies where the party to be restrained is amenable to the Court’s jurisdiction (e.g., by unconditional appearance or by proving in the liquidation).
• Two principal “gateways” justify relief in this case:
  • Protection of the Irish court’s jurisdiction, processes, and orders from collateral attack, abuse of process, or vexation/oppression; and
  • Protection of liquidation proceedings in Ireland to ensure orderly, equitable asset realisation and distribution, without foreign end-runs for priority.
• JSC’s unconditional appearance (and separate proof of debt) amounted to submission to Irish jurisdiction. Its Russian arbitral and mandatory injunction proceedings were a collateral attack on the Irish pledge orders and an abuse of process; the Court granted relief.
• Orders made: the Court will grant relief restraining JSC from continuing the Russian mandatory injunction proceedings and from enforcing/relying upon the Yamal anti-suit injunction and the Russian arbitration awards. The orders are directed against JSC only.
• The Court refused broader relief against “all persons having notice”, declined to compel JSC to discontinue the Russian proceedings, and declined quia timet restraints against initiating similar claims elsewhere, citing evidential and jurisdictional constraints.
• The Court recognised delay by the liquidators, but found compelling reasons to grant tailored relief now, including the practical ramifications for recognition efforts in neutral third-country fora and the management of JSC’s own participation as a €2.3 billion claimant in the Irish liquidation.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

Irish statutory footing: Section 27(5) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877 was cited to confirm that while Irish proceedings cannot be restrained by injunction, equitable principles historically permitted remedies to prevent abuse and secure justice, including stays and in personam relief. This is not the source of a prohibition on restraining foreign proceedings; rather, it frames the equitable context within which anti-suit relief operates.

EU insolvency framework and Irish jurisdiction: The Court reiterated earlier findings (19 December 2023) that Articles 7(1)-(2) of the Recast Insolvency Directive (EU) 2015/848 identify Irish law as the applicable law given the opening of Irish insolvency proceedings, affirming Irish jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the pledge agreements.

English jurisprudence, adopted by analogy: In the absence of a prior written Irish decision on anti-suit injunctions, the Court drew extensively from English and Commonwealth authorities (in line with Irish practice of looking to persuasive common law sources):

• Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144: Anti-enforcement injunctions may restrain a party from reaping the fruits of a foreign judgment obtained in breach of obligation or by fraud; the remedy binds the party, not the foreign court.
• Elektrim Holdings SA v Vivendi Holdings 1 Corp [2008] 2 CLC 564: Anti-suit relief to protect the home court’s jurisdiction against collateral attack, where the foreign forum lacks a substantial connection and proceedings were deployed to derail English processes.
• Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd [2009] QB 503: Submission to jurisdiction empowers the court to issue ancillary orders protecting its judgments; relitigation abroad of issues lost domestically constitutes vexation/oppression warranting an injunction.
• Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236: A foreign creditor who proves in an English insolvency submits to the court’s jurisdiction and may be bound by its orders, providing a jurisdictional gateway for injunctions.
• Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys [2015] AC 616: In insolvency, anti-suit relief does not require proof of vexation/oppression; it is justified to prevent creditor “prior access” maneuvers that would undermine the pari passu distribution and orderly collection of assets under the statutory trust.
• SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] 1 CLC 820: Anti-enforcement injunctions are not confined by a rigid “exceptionality” threshold; while scenarios may be rare, exceptionality is not a jurisdictional condition.
• JP Morgan Securities plc v VTB Bank PJSC [2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm): Modern practice shows anti-enforcement relief may be appropriate in matters connected to Russia, acknowledging difficulties in discontinuing foreign proceedings.
• Alsaady v Al Hamadani [2025] EWHC 1801 (Ch) and Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP [2010] 1 WLR 1023: Consolidated statement of principles on anti-suit injunctions, including the role of forum non conveniens and comity.
• Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] 1 CLC 294: Although submission is not a formal condition precedent, the absence of submission weighs heavily against granting relief; comity and the lack of impact on domestic proceedings were decisive in refusing an injunction there.
• Acrow Ltd v Rex Chainbelt Inc [1971] 1 WLR 1676: Cited to demonstrate narrow circumstances where non-parties aware of orders may be restrained for aiding/abetting; distinguished as inapposite to the broad order sought against “all persons having notice.”

Irish appellate history in this case: The Court relied on the Court of Appeal’s findings that JSC’s unconditional appearance constituted a “clear and unequivocal submission to jurisdiction,” and that its initial non-participation in the High Court was tactical and an abuse. The Supreme Court’s refusal of leave confirmed those conclusions as grounded in “well-established principles.” These determinations underpinned the High Court’s readiness to view the Russian proceedings as collateral attacks and abuses of the Irish process.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A) The two jurisdictional “gateways”

• Protection of the Court’s process and orders: Where a party who has submitted to the Irish court brings or pursues foreign proceedings that undermine final Irish orders, the Irish court may restrain such steps as abusive, vexatious/oppressive, or as a collateral attack on its judgments. JSC’s pursuit of Russian arbitrations and the mandatory injunction proceedings—after its submission to Irish jurisdiction—fell squarely within this category. The Court analogised to Masri, noting JSC’s conduct was intended to interfere with Irish litigation to which it had submitted.
• Protection of Irish liquidation proceedings: Independently, the Irish court supervising a liquidation has jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings that subvert the orderly realisation and distribution of assets for the benefit of the general body of creditors. Echoing Stichting Shell, vexation/oppression is not a necessary element in the insolvency context. Here, aircraft are core liquidation assets; allowing JSC to assert ownership abroad via pledges already held void in Ireland would undermine the liquidation.

B) Submission to Irish jurisdiction

• JSC submitted to the Irish jurisdiction by entering an unconditional appearance to pursue its appeal (as held by the Court of Appeal). This empowered the High Court to make ancillary in personam orders against JSC to protect its process and judgments.
• Separately, JSC submitted by proving in the liquidation (see Rubin), seeking to be admitted as a creditor for approximately €2.3 billion while simultaneously attempting in Russia to nullify the Irish pledge orders’ effect. The Court highlighted the incompatibility of “approbating and reprobating” the Irish process.

C) Anti-suit vs. anti-enforcement; mandatory vs. prohibitory relief

• The Court emphasised there is no difference in principle between anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, nor between prohibitory and mandatory orders. All are discretionary, to be exercised with due regard to comity.
• Delay is particularly relevant to anti-enforcement relief. While the liquidators’ delay in bringing this application was noted, it did not outweigh pressing concerns: the imminent potential for extraterritorial effects of the Russian mandatory injunction proceedings and the practical need to manage JSC’s contradictory participation in the liquidation as a creditor.
• As to the earlier Russian anti-suit order obtained before JSC’s submission in Ireland: once JSC submitted here, any steps to rely on or enforce that Russian anti-suit order became an interference with the Irish process, justifying anti-enforcement relief now.

D) Comity and scope

• The orders are strictly in personam against JSC and do not impugn the integrity of the Russian courts or the arbitral tribunal; the purpose is to protect Irish adjudicative outcomes and the liquidation supervised under Irish law.
• The Court refused the applicants’ request to bind “all persons having notice” of the Irish orders, citing jurisdictional and fairness concerns (including for legal representatives). The in personam jurisdiction is premised here on JSC’s submission; that logic does not extend to all third parties merely aware of the orders.
• Mandatory discontinuance was declined, as was quia timet relief against proceedings “in any other jurisdiction,” due to insufficient evidence and the need for restraint in the exercise of the discretionary power.

E) A structured statement of Irish principles (paras 79–83): Mulcahy J synthesised the position for Ireland as follows:

• Anti-suit injunctions are in personam orders, available against persons subject to Irish jurisdiction by agreement, unconditional appearance, or (in liquidations) by proving in the estate.
• They may restrain fraudulent conduct; foreign proceedings that are abusive, vexatious, oppressive, or that circumvent Irish court orders; and foreign proceedings that undermine Irish liquidation proceedings.
• Such orders are directed to the party, not the foreign tribunal, and do not imply criticism of the foreign court; assessment may include whether the party’s pursuit of foreign relief would be oppressive in context.
• No doctrinal distinction in principle between anti-suit and anti-enforcement, or between mandatory and prohibitory orders; the jurisdiction is discretionary, and delay may weigh against relief, especially anti-enforcement.

3) Impact and Significance

A) Doctrinal significance in Irish law

• This is the first comprehensive Irish articulation of anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction principles, aligning Irish law with the leading English jurisprudence while embedding a distinctively Irish insolvency-protection rationale.
• The Court expressly recognises two principal gateways—protection of the court’s process and protection of the liquidation—which will structure future applications in Ireland.
• It clarifies that a creditor who proves in an Irish liquidation submits to the jurisdiction, with consequential exposure to anti-suit relief if it seeks to undermine Irish orders abroad.

B) Practical effects in cross-border insolvency and enforcement

• Liquidators now have a clear Irish pathway to restrain foreign proceedings that threaten the pari passu distribution or relitigation of matters resolved under Irish insolvency law (here, Article 7 of the Recast Insolvency Directive).
• Targeted anti-enforcement orders can neutralise the use of foreign anti-suit injunctions or arbitration awards as leverage, especially where overseas orders carry penal consequences, without criticising foreign tribunals.
• Recognition efforts in “neutral” jurisdictions: the Court acknowledged that having Irish anti-suit/anti-enforcement orders may materially assist liquidators in persuading third-country courts and administrative authorities to prefer Irish insolvency outcomes over conflicting foreign orders.

C) Guardrails for future litigants

• Submission matters: Parties entering unconditional appearances or proving in Irish liquidations should expect the Irish courts to police collateral attacks abroad.
• Timeliness: Delay will be scrutinised, particularly when anti-enforcement relief is sought after foreign judgments or awards have been obtained. Applicants should act promptly, especially where foreign processes may develop rapidly.
• Scope discipline: Attempts to bind “all persons having notice” are unlikely to succeed absent a demonstrable aiding/abetting context. Relief should be tailored to the respondent and the mischief to be restrained.
• Evidence for mandatory discontinuance: Compulsory orders to discontinue foreign proceedings require a robust evidential foundation concerning feasibility and consequences in the foreign system.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Anti-suit injunction: An order restraining a party (not the foreign court) from starting or continuing foreign legal proceedings because doing so would be unfair or would undermine Irish litigation or liquidations.
• Anti-enforcement injunction: An order restraining a party from enforcing or relying on a foreign judgment or arbitral award, typically because the party’s conduct amounts to an abuse (e.g., relitigating issues already decided in Ireland).
• In personam: The order binds the person, not the foreign court or tribunal. It is enforced through the Irish court’s control over the party subject to its jurisdiction.
• Submission to jurisdiction: A party accepts the Irish court’s authority, commonly by entering an unconditional appearance or proving in an Irish liquidation; after submission, the court can make ancillary orders against that party.
• Collateral attack: Using another court or process to undermine or relitigate issues already decided by the Irish court, rather than challenging them through proper Irish appellate routes.
• Vexatious/oppressive: Conduct or proceedings that are unfairly burdensome, duplicative, or strategically abusive, often used to harass or to secure a procedural advantage.
• Comity: Mutual respect among courts of different states. Anti-suit orders navigate comity by targeting only the party, avoiding directives to foreign courts.
• Lex fori concursus (Article 7 of the Recast Insolvency Directive): The law of the state where insolvency is opened governs key issues in the insolvency, including how assets are treated—here, Irish law governs the Companies’ liquidation.
• Quia timet relief: An injunction granted because of a well-founded apprehension that a legal wrong is likely in the future; refused here for lack of evidence of imminent new foreign suits beyond Russia.
• Proof of debt: A creditor’s claim submission in a liquidation; doing so submits the creditor to the court’s jurisdiction for ancillary orders tied to the insolvency.

Orders Made and Relief Refused

• Granted (against JSC only):
  • Restraint on continuing/prosecuting the Moscow mandatory injunction proceedings that target the liquidators’ communications to lessees/airports concerning aircraft ownership and recognition of Irish orders.
  • Anti-enforcement relief restraining JSC from taking steps to enforce, obtain recognition of, or rely upon: (i) the Russian arbitral awards declaring pledge validity and foreclosure/ownership, and (ii) the Yamal anti-suit injunction.
• Refused:
  • Extension of orders to “all persons having notice.”
  • A mandatory order compelling JSC to discontinue the Russian proceedings (insufficient evidence as to feasibility and consequences).
  • Quia timet relief restraining JSC from bringing the Russian claims “in any other jurisdiction” (no current evidence of plans to do so).

Key Takeaways and Practical Guidance

• Ireland now has a clear, articulated framework for anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, especially potent in insolvency: two gateways—protection of the Court’s process and protection of the liquidation.
• Submission is decisive: unconditional appearance and proof of debt empower the Irish courts to grant ancillary in personam orders to preserve the effectiveness of Irish judgments and the orderly liquidation.
• Insolvency priority: The Court will intervene to prevent a “race to assets” abroad that threatens pari passu distribution under Irish supervision, even if the foreign proceedings are not independently “vexatious.”
• Comity-sensitive scope: Orders will be targeted and proportionate; attempts to bind non-parties or to compel discontinuance without solid evidence will be resisted.
• Timeliness matters: Delay can weaken anti-enforcement applications. Practitioners should consider early protective relief when foreign proceedings are threatened or commenced.
• Recognition strategy: Tailored Irish anti-suit/anti-enforcement orders may materially assist liquidators in third-country recognition contests where conflicting foreign orders exist.

Conclusion

Mulcahy J’s judgment is a watershed in Irish private international law and insolvency practice. It confirms that the Irish courts possess and will exercise an in personam jurisdiction to grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions where necessary to protect their judgments and the integrity of Irish liquidations governed by Irish law under the Recast Insolvency Directive. The decision synthesises leading common law authorities into an Irish statement of principles: submission to jurisdiction (including by proving debt) is the jurisdictional trigger; relief is available to restrain abuses and to avert foreign interference with Irish liquidation processes; and while comity and discretion temper the remedy’s scope, the Court will act decisively where foreign proceedings amount to collateral attacks on final Irish orders or threaten to derail equitable asset distribution.

Practically, the ruling equips Irish liquidators and stakeholders with a coherent toolkit to counteract foreign litigation strategies that conflict with Irish insolvency outcomes, and it signals that participation in Irish processes carries responsibilities that cannot be evaded by resorting to inconsistent litigation abroad. It thus strengthens the predictability and authority of Irish insolvency proceedings in the increasingly complex arena of cross-border asset recovery and enforcement.

Case Details

• Court: High Court of Ireland
• Judge: Mulcahy J
• Citation: [2025] IEHC 524
• Date: 6 October 2025
• Parties: Joint Liquidators of GTLK Europe DAC and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (Applicants) v JSC “State Transport Leasing Company” (Respondent)
• Notice Parties: STLC Europe One, Two, Four, Eleven, Fourteen, Sixteen, Twenty Two, Twenty Seven, Twenty Eight Leasing Limited (subsidiaries)
• Next listing (for final orders and costs): 10 October 2025