Stephenson Harwood
18 Experts
7 Contributions by Stephenson Harwood
PRACTICE NOTES
For parties and counsel running arbitrations with a seat in England and Wales or Northern Ireland (England being used here as a shorthand), and for those pursuing recognition or enforcement of domestic or overseas awards before the courts of England and Wales, a grasp of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and the extent to which it may govern proceedings seated in England is essential. In contrast with the statutes of arbitral seats, such as Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609), the AA 1996 neither transposes nor is chiefly derived from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law), though it owes much to that framework...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note reviews the law and practice on awarding interest on damages and costs in international commercial arbitration, with specific reference to the law of England and Wales and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). It also draws on comparative guidance from investment treaty arbitration. To compare this issue across jurisdictions globally, see our International Comparator Tool.
Which law determines the award of interest in arbitration proceedings?
The decision whether to award interest, and the appropriate rate, rests with the arbitral tribunal, which must first identify the basis for awarding interest. In doing so, the tribunal will assess:
any agreement between the parties (in the arbitration agreement, the main contract, or reached later)
the terms of any applicable arbitral rules or legislation (including provisions for statutory interest)
the relevant applicable law
In practice, any express agreement by the parties will be
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
The English court and security for costs during arbitral proceedings
In England and Wales, the courts currently lack authority to order security for costs while an arbitration is underway; that competence lies exclusively with the tribunal. This was not always the position. In Coppée-Lavalin v Ken-Ren Chemicals and Fertilisers; Voest-Alpine v Ken-Ren Chemicals and Fertilisers, the House of Lords, considering section 12(6)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1950, confirmed that the court was not prevented from directing security for costs in an international arbitration, and endorsed the general framework for exercising that discretion as described by Lord Mustill. The House nevertheless divided on how the discretion should be applied on the facts, with a majority holding that security for costs ought to be ordered in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration taking place in London. Lords Keith, Slynn and Woolf concluded that there was a real risk the
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
A by-product of arbitration’s cross-border character is the multiplicity of currencies parties and tribunals must handle, sometimes within a single case, with claims brought—and frequently granted—in different denominations. For broader guidance on currency questions in arbitration, see Practice Note: Currency in arbitration.
Currency in International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration proceedings
In investment arbitrations, tribunals regularly face currency-choice issues, chiefly linked to movements in the host state’s currency in which the investment was made and losses occurred and/or to the non-exchangeable status of some currencies. The following case illustrates how ICSID tribunals have addressed such questions. In Siemens AG v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/02/8), the tribunal decided that compensation should be payable in US dollars rather than the contract currency, Argentine pesos. It was contended that the agreement did not secure Siemens parity between the peso and the
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
The concept of ‘security for costs’ is widely known and understood by common law practitioners but may well be less familiar to civil lawyers, as it is intimately connected to the common law principle that, in general, the legal expenses of conducting court proceedings should ‘follow the event’—put simply, the loser pays. In proceedings in England and Wales, the general default position, where a court elects to make a formal costs order, is that the unsuccessful party will be required to pay the successful party’s recoverable costs, although the court retains a broad and flexible discretion in this area—see: Costs orders—overview. To reinforce that principle, the device of security for costs enables a defendant (whether facing the main claim or a counterclaim) to seek an order that the claimant provide security for the likely recoverable costs the defendant will incur in
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT :
Section 10 of the Finance Act 2022 will raise the normal minimum pension age (NMPA) from 55 to 57 on 6 April 2028, with an exception for members of the firefighters, police and armed forces public service pension schemes. The Act will also permit members of registered pension schemes to access benefits before 57 where, on or before 4 November 2021, they either possessed an ‘unqualified right’ to take benefits, or were engaged in a substantive transfer to a scheme that, on or before that date, offered an unqualified right to a protected pension age below 57.
To make use of this 2028 protection, the scheme’s rules must have contained, as at 11 February 2021, an unqualified right to take entitlement to scheme benefits before age 57. For further details, see Practice Note: Increasing the normal minimum pension age (NMPA) to
Pensions
CHECKLISTS
This Checklist
This checklist reviews the procedural and related issues the tribunal is expected to address at a preliminary meeting in arbitration, whether the process is ad hoc or under an arbitral institution. Matters typically cover jurisdictional objections, applications for interim measures or the trial of preliminary points, setting schedules for the progress of elements of the reference, and organising how all the evidence will be exchanged and presented. Whatever the forum—ad hoc or institutional—and whichever institutional rules govern, the tribunal will usually convene a preliminary meeting soon after it is formed. The parties themselves (rather than their advisers) are generally not obliged to attend this session, although it is advantageous if they do, as they will meet the tribunal and confront the opposing team at an early juncture. In international cases, it may also be one of the few chances for everyone
Arbitration
6 Contributions by Stephenson Harwood Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
This note reviews how state immunity interacts with arbitration in the UAE. For a broad primer on state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. For further Practice Notes addressing state immunity across multiple jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see: State immunity and arbitration—overview.
On 3 May 2018, the UAE promulgated Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (the ‘UAE Federal Arbitration Law’). Taking effect on 16 June 2018, it revoked Articles 203–218 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (Federal Law No. 11 of 1992), which had previously regulated arbitrations seated in the UAE. The law applies to all ongoing UAE-seated arbitrations (excluding arbitrations seated in the DIFC and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which are
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
UAE Federal Arbitration Law
Businesses operating in the UAE frequently choose international arbitration as their preferred route for settling contractual disagreements. On 3 May 2018, the UAE introduced Federal Law No 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, later revised by Federal Decree-Law No 15 of 2023 (the ‘UAE Federal Arbitration Law’). Taking effect on 16 June 2018, this statute is the first dedicated arbitration law and it abrogates Articles 203–218 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (Federal Law No 11 of 1992), which had until then regulated arbitrations with a UAE seat. The UAE Federal Arbitration Law governs all domestic arbitrations seated in the UAE (excluding those seated in the Dubai International Finance Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which are exempt-free zones), new arbitrations with a UAE seat unless the parties decide otherwise, and international commercial
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Interim remedies and arbitration in the UAE
Interim remedies in the UAE are, as a rule, harder to secure than in jurisdictions such as England and Wales or the United States. Local UAE courts typically do not recognise injunctions or similar forms of interim relief, save for limited exceptions. In contrast, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts apply common law principles, so are more inclined to grant interim measures and have authority to make a wider range of orders. The tests the DIFC courts use when deciding whether to award an injunction will be familiar to lawyers from common law backgrounds. While this may reassure contracting parties choosing a DIFC courts jurisdiction clause, an interim order issued by the DIFC will be immediately effective only against assets, persons, or property located within the DIFC special economic zone. A claimant may then face
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
In general terms, a life tenant has the right to the income generated by an interest in possession (IIP) trust, and that income is charged to tax at the life tenant’s marginal rates. This applies whether the trustees collect the income and remit it to the life tenant, or where the income is ‘mandated’ so the life tenant is paid it straight from the source. While the ultimate income tax outcome is identical, the steps for reporting the income and settling any tax vary, depending on the route by which the income is received.
The source of the beneficiary's income
For a life tenant of an IIP trust, the income arises from the trust assets themselves, not from the enforceable right against the trustees to run the trust correctly. Consequently, for income tax, the life tenant’s income sources mirror the trust’s underlying
Private Client
PRACTICE NOTES
STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime
The Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025), which secured Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, enacts the removal of the remittance basis and brings in a residence-based regime with effect from 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also makes residence, rather than domicile, the principal criterion for determining inheritance tax exposure.
Further measures include:
Revisions to the rules for determining excluded property treatment
Removal of protected settlements status for offshore trusts
Updates to overseas workday relief
For details, refer to Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025. This Practice Note is archived and not
Private Client
PRACTICE NOTES
Transfer of assets abroad code (TAA Code)
Part 13, Chapter 2 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) sets out key UK anti-avoidance rules referred to as the transfer of assets abroad code. The TAA Code creates an income tax charge where a ‘relevant transaction’ exists in three situations.
First, a charge applies to individuals treated as having income under ITA 2007, s 721—those with the power to enjoy such income (see Practice Note: Transfer of assets abroad—transferors having the power to enjoy income).
Secondly, a charge applies to individuals treated as having income under ITA 2007, s 728—those who receive capital sums (see Practice Note: Transfer of assets abroad—transferors receiving capital sums). Together, these are called the ‘transferor charge’.
Thirdly, a charge applies to individuals to whom income is treated as arising under ITA 2007, s 732 as a consequence of a relevant
Private Client
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
