ABC v DEF [2025] EWHC 711 (Comm) (19 March 2025)

Executive Summary

The case concerns an application under s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 by ABC (claimant) seeking a declaration that it is not party to arbitration agreements in two contracts between DEF (defendant) and subsidiaries [3] UK Ltd and [3] SDN. BHD.
Contracts govern pharmaceutical product supply, with arbitration clauses specifying LCIA rules and English law.
The defendant initiated arbitration naming ABC as a respondent, alleging ABC shares liabilities due to integrated corporate structure and conduct.
The court must determine whether ABC is bound by arbitration agreements it did not sign, focusing on contract interpretation and jurisdiction.

Sanctions implications flagged: defendant identified as "SDN" (Specially Designated National) subject to sanctions.
No direct sanctions enforcement issues discussed, but involvement of an SDN party raises compliance risks for UK-based arbitration and enforcement.
Arbitration seat in London implicates UK sanctions regime, requiring careful due diligence on parties and enforcement actions.

Risk of expanded arbitration liability through implied contracts or conduct, potentially broadening parties subject to arbitration beyond formal signatories.
Potential for jurisdictional disputes to delay resolution and increase litigation/arbitration costs.
Sanctions exposure risk if defendant’s SDN status affects enforcement or participation in London arbitration.
Corporate group integration claims may set precedent for piercing corporate veil in arbitration contexts.

Arbitration seat in London (UK) places dispute within UK legal and regulatory framework, including sanctions enforcement.
Defendant’s SDN status likely linked to geopolitical tensions involving Kazakhstan or related jurisdictions (implied by corporate structure and sanctions flag).
UK’s role as arbitration hub may be complicated by sanctions compliance and geopolitical considerations affecting cross-border pharmaceutical supply chains.

Dispute involves pharmaceutical supply contracts within a multinational corporate group, indicating significant commercial stakes.
Potential disruption to supply chains if arbitration outcomes affect contractual relationships or enforcement.
Sanctions designation of defendant could impact financial transactions, payments, and contract performance.
Arbitration delays and jurisdictional challenges may increase operational and legal costs for involved parties.

Parties should conduct rigorous sanctions compliance review given defendant’s SDN status and UK arbitration seat.
Claimant should leverage s.72 application to limit exposure to arbitration absent valid agreement.
Defendant should prepare to substantiate implied contract and integrated operations claims with clear evidence.
Consider parallel risk mitigation strategies for enforcement challenges under UK sanctions regime.
Monitor geopolitical developments affecting Kazakhstan-UK relations and sanctions regimes impacting arbitration and commercial operations.

---

**Source Notes:**

Case Title: Sanctions Intelligence Digest

Link: https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/711.html