Overview
London, 14 July 2026 — International law firm McDermott Will & Schulte successfully acted for Tecnimont S.p.A. (“Tecnimont”) in securing permission to serve a contempt application out of the jurisdiction by alternative means against LLC EuroChem North-West-2’s (“EuroChem”) and its sole director, Mr Andrey Egorov (“Mr Egorov”) from the English Commercial Court. You can access the judgment here.
Background
The underlying dispute between Tecnimont and its subsidiary, MT Russia LLC (“MTR”, and together with Tecnimont, the “Contractors”), and EuroChem concerns the construction of an ammonia and urea fertiliser plant near the Russian town of Kingisepp (the “K2 Project”), in respect of which EuroChem engaged the Contractors under various EPCC contracts (the “K2 Contracts”). Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the imposition of increased trade and financial sanctions measures (including the designation of the ultimate owner and controller of EuroChem, Mr Andrey Melnichenko), the Contractors suspended performance of the K2 Contracts. EuroChem disputed the lawfulness of that suspension and terminated the K2 Contracts. The Contractors commenced London-seated arbitration under the ICC Rules in August 2022 (the “Arbitration”).
On 31 July 2025, Mr Justice Bright handed down an adverse judgment against EuroChem in parallel English Court proceedings concerning EuroChem’s call under certain on-demand performance bonds issued by ING Bank and Société Générale to guarantee the Contractors’ performance under the K2 Contracts (as discussed in greater detail here). After the judgment, and despite having participated in the Arbitration for more than three years, EuroChem sought to undermine the Arbitration by bringing unlawful proceedings in Russia (including applications for anti-arbitration injunctions) against the Contractors in breach of the arbitration agreements contained in the K2 Contracts (the “Russian Actions”).
As discussed in greater detail here, the Contractors obtained various peremptory orders (i.e., a form of order from an arbitral tribunal that, if breached, can be enforced in the English Courts under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996) from the tribunal in the Arbitration (the “Tribunal”) restraining the Russian Actions. EuroChem failed to comply with the peremptory orders and therefore, on 21 November 2025, the Contractors obtained an order (endorsed with a penal notice) from Mr Justice Butcher sitting in the English Commercial Court requiring EuroChem to comply with the Tribunal’s peremptory orders, including by immediately withdrawing the Russian Actions (the “Butcher J Order”). You can view the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Butcher here. EuroChem appealed the Butcher J Order, which appeal was unsuccessful and the relevant judgment of the Court of Appeal can be viewed here.
Rather than complying with the Butcher J Order, EuroChem continued to pursue the Russian Actions and, on 27 November 2025, obtained a judgment of approximately €2 billion from the Moscow Arbitrazh Court, in respect of claims which replicated EuroChem’s counterclaims in the Arbitration (and which were still being pursued by EuroChem in the Arbitration). On 10 December 2025, EuroChem then obtained anti-arbitration injunctions from the St. Petersburg Arbitrazh Court, together with statutory penalties of approximately €900 million in the event that the Contractors failed to withdraw the Arbitration. EuroChem has since pursued a vexatious campaign to try and enforce these Russian judgments around the world, notably in India and Malaysia.
The English Contempt Proceedings
Having failed to comply with the Butcher J Order, the Contractors issued contempt proceedings on 28 January 2026 against EuroChem and its sole director, Mr Egorov (the “Contempt Proceedings”).
The Contractors sought to effect service of the Contempt Proceedings on EuroChem via its solicitors pursuant to CPR 81.5(2), which provides that, where a legal representative for the alleged contemnor is on the record in the underlying proceedings, the contempt application can be served on that legal representative, unless the representative objects in writing, at which point the issue of service shall be referred to a judge.
Without providing any reasons, EuroChem’s solicitors objected to service and also stated that they were not instructed by Mr Egorov. The Contractors in turn applied for the issue of service on EuroChem under CPR 81.5(2) to be determined by a judge, as well as for permission to serve Mr Egorov out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means on certain email addresses (the “Service Application”). The matter was listed for a one-day hearing.
During the period prior to the Service Application being heard, MTR’s former director in Russia, Mr Evreinov, was arrested as a result of EuroChem having filed entirely unsubstantiated criminal complaints against him on alleged grounds of embezzlement. During his house arrest—albeit after having been removed as MTR’s director—Mr Evreinov was pressured into attempting to withdraw MTR’s claims in the Arbitration and to remove McDermott as solicitors of record in the Arbitration and the various related English Court proceedings (including the Contempt Proceedings). The Tribunal declined to give effect to the steps purportedly taken by Mr Evreinov. With regard to the Contempt Proceedings, the Contractors disputed that McDermott had been removed as MTR’s solicitors of record; however, given MTR was not strictly needed to bring the proceedings, the parties eventually agreed for MTR’s application for contempt to be stayed and for the Contempt Proceedings to continue in the name of Tecnimont alone.
On 17 June 2026, Mr Sean O’Sullivan KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, heard the Service Application. Mr Egorov neither attended nor was he represented, albeit EuroChem’s counsel at the hearing made certain observations on his behalf owing to his non-attendance. For both defendants, the central argument was that, where they are both domiciled in a Hague Service Convention (“HSC”) country and that country (in this case Russia) has stated an objection to service otherwise than through its designated entity under Article 10 of the HSC, service under the HSC could not be departed from without exceptional or special circumstances. Specifically in the case of EuroChem, it was argued that service through the HSC could not be circumvented through CPR 81.5.
The Judge expressed his doubts, obiter dicta, as to whether a judge to whom the issue of service was referred under CPR 81.5(2)(c) should apply the exceptional/special circumstances test, as opposed to being satisfied as to whether there was a good reason for the solicitors of record to reject service under CPR 81.5(2)(a). Whilst the Judge would have been with the Contractors on this issue (see paragraph 34 of the judgment), he adopted a more cautious approach by treating the issue as equivalent to an application for alternative service under CPR 6.15.
In light of the largely undisputed history of the matter, the Judge was:
[…] satisfied that [the] evidence reveals an unwillingness, whether for good reasons or ill, on the part of [EuroChem] and Mr Egorov, to comply with orders of the Tribunal and this court, and as part of that unwillingness, a strategy of taking every available step to generate delay to the enforcement of those orders.
Accordingly, the Judge readily found against both Defendants, ultimately concluding that the evidence clearly demonstrated exceptional circumstances:
[…] I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances here. This is a bizarre situation where delay is truly being sought for delay’s sake, in a context where delay of even six months would be highly unsatisfactory. Moreover, I am satisfied that the likelihood is that service via the HSC in Russia would not be successfully achieved, and I see no good reason why everything should be put on hold until that expectation becomes a reality.
Conclusion
This judgment will be of particular interest to parties taking action against foreign-domiciled (especially Russian) parties in the English courts, as it confirms the Court’s eagerness to ensure prompt service of contempt proceedings in the event of non-compliance with its orders. Though obiter, the Judge gave clear guidance to parties in breach of court orders that a bare refusal under CPR 81.5(2)(a) by solicitors of record to accept service will not be well received without good reason.
This latest setback for EuroChem is compounded by the Bombay High Court’s dismissal on 8 June 2026 of its application for an interim order freezing Tecnimont’s assets in India, as explained here, as well as Maire (the Contractors’ parent company) successfully injuncting EuroChem from pursuing other unlawful Russian court proceedings against it, as explained here.
The Maire entities in the Arbitration and parallel English court litigation are represented by the disputes team of McDermott Will & Schulte, led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne and David Kiefer, supported by associates James McGlaughlin, Jonathan Robb, Alison Morris, William Merry and William Evans in London, Mariafiore Miniussi in Milan, Maxime Delabarre in Paris, and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado and Ignacio Zabala Alonso in Washington DC, and supported by trainee Fleur Saillard and paralegal Rory Benton in London.