knowledge 7 November 2025 |

High Court Delivers Welcome Guidance on Anti-Suit Injunctions in Irish Law

Background

GTLK Europe DAC and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (the “Companies”) were both incorporated in Ireland but formed part of a wider group of international transport leasing companies (“GTLK Europe Group”) whose ultimate beneficial owner and controller was the Russian Federation. GTLK Europe Capital DAC was the apex company for GTLK Europe Group’s operations in Europe and the Middle East, holding assets valued at USD$4.5 billion, consisting of 70 aircraft and 19 sea going vessels. These transport assets were leased in 13 countries to 21 lessees, including to high-profile international airlines. However, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the GTLK Europe Group became subject to European Union sanctions due to its ultimate ownership by the Russian Federation. This resulted in the GTLK group Companies’ funds being frozen, rendering those companies unable to repay debts and resulting in a winding up order being made against them. Joint liquidators were then appointed over the Companies.

The Anti-Suit Injunction Proceedings

The Transport Leasing Company (“JSC”), an entity which owned the Companies and which in turn is owned by the Russian Federation, claimed that it was the owner, by virtue of pledge agreements it alleged had been made by the Companies in favour of it, of 37 aircraft (the “Aircraft”). The High Court rejected JSC’s claim to those Aircraft and ruled in December 2023 that these pledge agreements were unenforceable and that the Aircraft were assets of the Companies. JSC did not take part in the High Court proceedings. However, JSC filed an unconditional appearance in order to appeal the decision of the High Court. By doing so, JSC voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Irish Court.

Noonan J in the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and concluded that the non-appearance by JSC in the High Court was “tactical” and the appeal was a “manifest abuse of process”.²

JSC, in parallel to the Irish proceedings, obtained an anti-suit order from the Russian Courts, which purported to prohibit the joint liquidators of GTLK from continuing any legal proceedings concerning the pledge agreements, the enforcement of the pledge agreements or determining the ownership of the Aircraft. The order provided for a penalty of approximately €850 million for non-compliance. JSC also initiated further proceedings in Russia seeking orders that the joint liquidators be restrained from sending correspondence to the operators of airports to which the Aircraft are flying, which the joint liquidators had been doing to assert ownership over the Aircraft and to seek to have the Aircraft grounded.

The joint liquidators applied to the High Court for an anti-suit injunction restraining JSC from pursuing the proceedings in Russia, arguing that by filing an unconditional appearance, JSC had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts and that the Russian proceedings would unlawfully interfere with the conduct of the liquidation in Ireland. Granting the injunction, Mulcahy J held that the Irish Courts have jurisdiction to protect the integrity of their own processes and that JSC’s actions in pursuing the Russian proceedings were intended to circumvent final orders being made in the Irish proceedings. Mulcahy J noted that JSC claimed both as a creditor in the liquidation while at the same time seeking to challenge the liquidation in which JSC itself claims. Mulcahy J ruled that the Irish Courts have an obligation to supervise the liquidation of companies in the interests of creditors and it was impermissible for a creditor such as JSC to pursue proceedings in another jurisdiction to attempt to obtain a priority interest in particular assets.

Mulcahy J noted as a reason for granting an anti-suit injunction, evidence that the orders which he made may be of assistance in dealing with the authorities in “neutral jurisdictions” and that the position of the liquidators in such jurisdictions might be undermined in the absence of an anti-suit remedy. Finally, Mulcahy J was satisfied that the contradictory position adopted by JSC, which is availing of the liquidation while at the same time directly seeking to challenge its outcome was a further reason for granting the injunction sought.

Mulcahy J ultimately granted an order restraining JSC from taking any steps to maintain, continue or prosecute any of specified Russian proceedings.

However, Mulcahy J declined to order JSC to discontinue the Russian proceedings, finding that there was a lack of evidence demonstrating the willingness of Russian Courts to discontinue proceedings upon request. He also refused to extend the anti-suit injunction to any third parties with notice of the Order expressing doubt that the Court had jurisdiction to make such orders against parties which were not within and had not submitted to its jurisdiction.

Mulcahy J, furthermore, found that there was no evidence to justify an order against JSC to refrain from initiating proceedings in any jurisdiction other than Russia because there was no evidence that JSC intended to bring proceedings in any such jurisdiction.

Comment

This judgment offers welcome clarity on the power of the Irish Courts to issue anti-suit injunctions and circumstances in which such injunctions will be issued. It is worth noting that the exact parameters of the Irish Courts’ jurisdiction are open to be developed in future cases.