In brief
- The High Court granted the first known anti-enforcement injunction restraining enforcement of an English judgment, preventing Dr Williams from pursuing enforcement of a US$15 million default judgment in New York pending fraud proceedings in England.
- The Court clarified that applications for anti-suit injunctions on non-contractual grounds require demonstration of a "high probability" of success in a final injunction being granted at trial, rather than the lower "serious issue to be tried" test.
- The judgment establishes that English courts can grant anti-enforcement injunctions to protect the integrity of their own processes and prevent judgments from being used as instruments of fraud.
- The New York court agreed to stay enforcement proceedings pending the English court's decision, demonstrating international judicial comity in cross-border enforcement disputes.
Background
This case arose from a claim by the Federal Government of Nigeria and its Attorney General to set aside a default judgment for US$14,986,791 obtained by Dr Louis Emovbira Williams in November 2018 on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently. Dr Williams subsequently commenced enforcement proceedings in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in August 2023, seeking recognition and enforcement of the English default judgment against Nigerian government entities and banks holding Nigerian Government funds.
The Nigerian defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, which was denied in August 2024, leading them to file their defence alleging the underlying claim was fundamentally dishonest and founded on forged documents. Following an unsuccessful appeal, the enforcement proceedings were set to continue with trial expected by June 2026.
Legal analysis
Anti-enforcement injunction jurisdiction
The Court confirmed the well-established power of English courts to grant anti-enforcement injunctions restraining parties from seeking to enforce foreign judgments, even in other countries. Significantly, Mr Justice Henshaw found no principled reason why such orders should not be available to restrain enforcement of English judgments, noting that some comity considerations applicable to foreign judgments are less concerning when an English court addresses its own judgment.
The legal test for non-contractual anti-suit injunctions
The judgment provides important clarification of the applicable test for anti-suit injunctions sought on non-contractual grounds. The Court established that applicants must demonstrate a "high probability" of success in establishing their case for a final anti-suit injunction, rather than merely satisfying the lower American Cyanamid test of showing a serious issue to be tried.
This higher threshold is justified because interim anti-suit injunctions are often decisive, determining in practice where substantive disputes are tried. However, the Court noted that an American Cyanamid approach may be appropriate where orders are granted temporarily to "hold the ring" pending further hearings and will not be determinative of the outcome.
Application of the legal test
As to the applicable legal test, the Court acknowledged that "the proposed interim AEI will not be determinative of the question of forum: it will merely suspend the enforcement proceedings pending determination of whether the Default Judgment should be set aside". On its face, this may have suggested the lower American Cyanamid test could apply, that there was a "serious issue to be tried". However, Mr Justice Henshaw nevertheless applied the higher threshold, concluding that "on current evidence it is highly probable that the Claimants will succeed at a trial in establishing that an AEI should be granted". This cautious approach reflects the serious nature of anti-enforcement relief and reinforces that robust justification is required when restraining enforcement proceedings, even if only temporarily.
Balancing competing interests
Mr Justice Henshaw found that the claimant had a strong case on the merits and that enforcement before determination of the fraud claim would be vexatious and oppressive. The Court balanced the risk of irreparable prejudice to Nigeria if enforcement proceeded (with potentially irrecoverable sums) against the more limited prejudice to Dr Williams of delay, noting he could seek compensation under the cross-undertaking in damages.
Significance and implications
This judgment breaks new ground in several respects. It appears to be the first case granting an anti-enforcement injunction against an English judgment, establishing important precedent for protecting the integrity of English court processes.
The Court emphasised that this was not about preventing enforcement of a foreign court's judgment, but rather protecting English court processes from being used as instruments of fraud. The international dimension was handled with particular sensitivity, with the New York court demonstrating comity by agreeing to await the English court's decision.
The clarification of the legal test for non-contractual anti-suit injunctions provides valuable guidance for practitioners, establishing that the higher "high probability" threshold applies in most circumstances, reflecting the potentially decisive nature of such relief.
For international litigation practitioners, this case demonstrates how courts can work cooperatively across jurisdictions to prevent abuse of process while respecting principles of comity. The agreement between the parties that they would abide by the English court's decision on the anti-enforcement injunction represents a pragmatic approach to resolving cross-border enforcement disputes. Importantly, this judgment establishes anti-enforcement injunctions as a valuable tool in the fraud and enforcement litigation arsenal, providing practitioners with an effective mechanism to protect clients from the enforcement of judgments being used as instruments of fraud.