Lord Justice Moore-Bick :

1. This is an appeal against the order of Cooke J. continuing an anti-suit injunction restraining the appellants, Enesa Engenharia S.A. and other insured (“the insured”), from pursuing proceedings against the respondents, Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros S.A. and other insurers (“the insurers”), in the courts of Brazil.

2. The dispute between the parties has its origin in two policies of insurance against various risks arising in connection with the construction of a hydroelectric generating plant in Brazil known as the Jirau Greenfield Hydro Project. In March 2011 certain incidents occurred which led the insured to make claims under the policies, but the insurers declined liability on the grounds that the losses were uninsured or excluded by express terms of the policies and that there had been a material alteration in the circumstances disclosed to them at inception of which they had not been notified as required by condition 3 of each of the policies. Since the policies are in substantially the same terms, it is convenient to refer to them simply as “the policy”, as did the judge below.

3. The policy contains a London arbitration clause, to which I shall refer in more detail later, but it also contains an express choice of Brazilian law as the law governing the contract and an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Brazil. On 29th November 2011 the insured gave notice of arbitration. In response the insured started proceedings in Brazil seeking to establish that the insurers were not entitled to refer the dispute to arbitration and obtained from the court in São Paulo an injunction restraining the insurers from resorting to arbitration in order to pursue a claim for a declaration that they were not liable under the policy. In response the insurers made an application without notice to the Commercial Court seeking an injunction to restrain the insured from pursuing the proceedings in Brazil. Stadlen J. granted an order in those terms which Cooke J. subsequently continued after hearing argument from both parties.

4. The judge made the following findings about the circumstances in which the policy had been entered into: