Commercial arbitration meaning

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is no longer maintained. For up-to-date guidance, please refer to: Governing law and jurisdiction clauses in commercial contracts―checklist. Brexit: As of exit day (11pm on 31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in line with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. This affects this Checklist. For further guidance, see Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources, and the Brexit collection. This Checklist assesses the implications of Brexit for drafting and negotiating dispute resolution clauses. It looks at the position regarding: Applicable law clauses (also referred to as governing law clauses or choice of law clauses) Jurisdiction clauses The enforcement of judgments The service of documents...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It is supplied for background reference only. The Checklist aims to equip arbitration practitioners with a catalogue of strategic, procedural and practical considerations that could be pertinent to—and should be weighed before, during and/or after—arbitral proceedings in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the responses of national governments and international arbitral organisations, including arbitral institutions. The Checklist is not comprehensive in scope and not every point will be applicable in each arbitration. It likewise omits any assessment of the substantive disputes that may lead to proceedings in the first instance (for example, claims over failed contractual performance said to result from the pandemic and its consequences). Although prepared with commercial arbitrations in view, many elements will equally apply to other arbitral forms, including investor–state. The Checklist also envisages arbitrations with oral hearings; matters conducted on a ‘documents only’ basis should be largely unaffected, except insofar as the pandemic has created personal difficulties for participants...

This Checklist To be read together with the Practice Note entitled Arbitration and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. It highlights key matters to assess when deciding whether arbitration clauses within contracts also bind a third party under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999): Does the relevant contract expressly disapply the C(RTP)A? Many commercial agreements expressly exclude the C(RTP)A 1999 Is the contract expressly subject to English law? If English law does not govern, then the C(RTP)A 1999 may not apply to the contract If the contract is not governed by English law, but the arbitration clause is, the C(RTP)A 1999 may nevertheless apply to the arbitration agreement (see eg AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC) Also, check the date of the contract...

This Flowchart This Flowchart supports your decision on whether a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is necessary when initiating a new project that involves personal data from the outset, helping you decide effectively. It sets out: three scenarios in which a DPIA is mandatory under Article 35(3) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR); and ten further processing activities for which the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) requires a DPIA to be carried out Where a DPIA is not needed, you should think about using a simpler form of review, which we call a privacy impact assessment (PIA) instead. The Flowchart enables you to determine which assessment—DPIA or PIA—best fits your project in practice. For additional guidance on DPIAs and PIAs, see Practice Note: How to complete a data protection impact assessment—DPIA...

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

Bayerische Landesbank and another v Ruschemalliance LLC [2024] EWHC 1822 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? In keeping with comparable determinations, this judgment succinctly sets out the jurisdictional thresholds and principal considerations the court applies when evaluating applications for anti‑suit injunctions. It underscores the judiciary’s practical bent and operates as a constructive illustration of inter‑court co‑ordination, projecting a clear signal where numerous contests flow from identical underlying events, even though such matters are dealt with at varying moments and tiers of the court structure. In sum, the outcome reasserts the English courts’ steadfast commitment to upholding arbitration, including in circumstances where the arbitral seat is situated in a foreign state. What was the background? In 2021, the defendant, Ruschemalliance LLC (“RCA”), a Russian entity, entered into two Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreements for the development of liquefied natural gas and gas processing plant facilities in Russia. The obligations owed by RCA’s counterparties, the German companies Linde GmbH and Renaissance Heavy Industries LLC (together,...

In this issue: Key DR developments Cross-border disputes Pre-action and limitation Litigation Case management Evidence and disclosure ADR Scottish Dispute Resolution Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Guidance and reports Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes February 2026 updated edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book: The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has issued an interim February 2026 update to the Equal Treatment Bench Book. For more information, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes February 2026 updated edition Equal Treatment Bench Book—LNB News 26/02/2026 28. HCCH publishes 2025 annual report highlighting private international law developments The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has released its 2025 annual report, noting the creation of two new Experts’ Groups to examine private international law topics linked to Digital Tokens and Carbon Markets. For more information, see: HCCH publishes 2025 annual report highlighting private international law...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not kept up to date. Practical implications of West Tankers In short, the current position arising from the West Tankers saga (so far) is: Any EU Member State court seised of proceedings must rule on its own jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Under Brussels I and Brussels I (recast), courts of another Member State cannot remove that competence from it. An arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate. Where jurisdiction is disputed (as it often is), consider advising clients to obtain a standalone final award addressing jurisdiction at the outset, and then seek to have it recognised and enforced by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This should prevent a conflicting court judgment taking precedence, on the basis of issue estoppel. Thereafter, the parties can proceed to the liability and quantum issues within the arbitration. West Tankers—the...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It is provided for background information only. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is an independent regulatory organisation supervising the US securities market. As part of its remit, FINRA runs the securities industry’s largest dispute resolution forum. It addresses financial and commercial disagreements between investors, brokerage firms and individual brokers, as well as disputes within and between brokerage firms and brokers. Matters are resolved through FINRA’s own arbitration process. FINRA maintains two Codes of Arbitration Procedure: the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the Customer Code or Section 12000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between investors and industry participants, and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the Industry Code or Section 13000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between industry parties This note relates to costs under both Codes. Filing fees Any party bringing a claim—including a counterclaim, a cross-claim or a...

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the overall structure of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules). The UNCITRAL Rules occupy a significant role in contemporary arbitration practice. They are crafted for ad hoc international commercial arbitrations—proceedings not administered by an arbitral institution and, typically, not conducted under that institution’s rules. The Rules may likewise be employed in investor–state arbitrations commenced under a treaty, such as a bilateral investment treaty, where the treaty permits arbitration conducted under those rules. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the UNCITRAL Rules govern arbitration agreements concluded on or after 15 August 2010, ie the date the revised Rules took effect. The earlier 1976 UNCITRAL Rules continue to apply to all arbitration agreements entered into before that date. Both the 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL Rules are separate from UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985 and revised in 2006, which has been adopted (often with modifications) by more than 50 jurisdictions—see Practice Note: The UNCITRAL...

The Contract comprises the completed Standard Building Contract With Approximate Quantities 2016 published by the JCT subject to the following amendments: This Contract adopts JCT SBC/AQ 2016 with extensive modifications to reflect design responsibility, building safety and commercial controls. Recitals: Contractor to provide a master programme and Schedule of Information Requirements; confirms site due diligence and accepts full CDP design liability. Articles: Dutyholder Regulations added; Tender Price covers Principal Contractor duties; arbitration removed; Schedule of Amendments prevails; strict protection of Third Party Agreements. Definitions/governance: new and revised terms (Building Safety Regulator, HRB, Practical Completion, Copyright Material, Design Sub‑contractors, Dutyholder Regulations); several deletions; English court jurisdiction. Design/materials/information: skill‑and‑care design and coordination; only new, compliant, non‑deleterious materials; golden thread storage; monthly programme reporting; site risks at Contractor’s risk. Procedures/controls: tighter instruction, testing, defects and as‑built duties; enhanced confidentiality and IP licences; HRB assistance; CDM/Dutyholder competency confirmations. Sub‑contracting/rights: prescribed sub‑contracts, insurances and delivery of collateral warranties/third‑party rights; limits on assignment. Payment/commercial: 28‑day final...

[ Submitted on behalf of the ] Claimant [ Insert the witness’s initials and surname together with the witness statement number ] [ insert the initials and the reference number for each exhibit cited ] [ insert date ] [ Date of translation: [ insert date ] ] Claim No.: [ insert claim number ] In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court (KBD) OR Claim No.: [ Insert details ] In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts in [ insert location ] [ specify division ] [ specify specialist court ] in an Arbitration claim And in the matter of an Arbitration Between [ insert Claimant’s name ] Claimant and [ insert Respondent’s name ] Respondent WITNESS STATEMENT OF [ insert witness’s name ] I, [ insert witness’s name ], of [ insert address ], set out as follows: This witness statement is made in support of the Claimant’s...

In relation to an arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 [ Property address ] (‘the Premises’) Between: [ insert name ] Tenant and [ insert name ] Landlord [ Draft ] TENANT’S FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR RELIEF FROM PAYMENT OF A PROTECTED RENT DEBT Introduction This is the Tenant’s formal proposal for resolving the matter of relief from payment of a protected rent debt, and is made for the purposes of section 11 of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 (‘the Act’) hereunder...