Legal News

The International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) has released the concluding instalment of its six-part series concerning the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, set to take effect on 1 June 2026......

Zalina Kanametova v OSG Records Management [ Europe] Limited [2026] EWHC 1196 ( Comm) Incentive agreement Judge Neil Cadwallader of the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division, within the High Court of England and Wales, held that the LCIA arbitrator’s decision was rightly issued on evidence showing the long-term incentive agreement ( LTI) said to guarantee a bonus to claimant Zalina Kanametova was not binding because it had been ‘fraudulently backdated’. As a result, the LCIA arbitrator properly determined there was no jurisdiction over Kanametova’s claim for a USD 1.3 million bonus against the respondent, Cyprus-based OSG Records Management ( Europe) Ltd. (referred to as OSG). Kanametova served as general director of OSG’s subsidiary, OSG Records Management Centre LLC (referred to as OSG Russia), from 2011–18. She contended that in 2015 she executed the LTI, which included an arbitration clause, and that it was also signed by...

CCDM Holdings LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9 What are the practical implications of this case? The principal takeaway is that simply ratifying the New York Convention does not, of itself, waive a state’s sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. By contrast, ratification of the ICSID Convention alone operates as a waiver of immunity: Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl. Because this was a unanimous ruling by Australia’s apex court, it is poised to carry persuasive weight internationally on the same issue-namely, whether ratification of the New York Convention, without anything further, effects a waiver of sovereign immunity for enforcement. The judgment underscores the sharp distinction between the ICSID Convention’s enforcement regime and that of the New York Convention. As a result, award creditors proceeding outside the ICSID...

The International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) has published the fifth instalment of its six-part series covering the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, due to take legal effect on 1 June 2026......

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Other arbitration and ADR developments New and updated content Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England and Wales What stays in pectore may sink the award The Commercial Court allowed a rare challenge under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996), finding that an ICC tribunal failed to grapple with two core causation questions that bore on significant elements of a damages claim. The ruling offers clear guidance on the line between an ‘issue’ that calls for a determination and a mere contention or point of evidence, and makes plain that tribunals cannot be presumed to have decided pivotal matters implicitly or in pectore. While reiterating the stringent standard for s 68...

Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC) has inaugurated its Beijing Representative Office, marking its sixth overseas office and second representative office within China......

New ICC Rules of Arbitration enhance efficiency, clarity and usability The International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) International Court of Arbitration President, Claudia Salomon, has presented the principal revisions to the ICC Rules of Arbitration, set to apply from 1 June 2026, aimed at improving efficiency, clarity and usability in arbitral practice. Electronic communications will be the default format. The requirement to draw up Terms of Reference is abolished. New express provisions allow early determination of claims or defences that are clearly without merit or outside a tribunal’s jurisdiction. Emergency arbitration procedures are refined. The threshold for the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions increases to USD 4 million. New Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions target resolution of certain disputes within three months. Additional updates cover arbitrator disclosures, electronic signing and notification of awards, tribunal secretaries, and revised fee and cost...

In this issue: Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Institutional and ad hoc arbitration CEPANI—revised Arbitration Rules announced The Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation ( CEPANI) has confirmed that its Board has approved updated CEPANI Arbitration Rules, coming into force on 1 June 2026. The 2026 Rules deliver a simplified framework attuned to the digitalisation of arbitral practice, enabling fully electronic case management, with express provisions for virtual hearings, digital submissions and electronic execution of arbitral awards. Provisions addressing multiparty proceedings have also been clarified. The objective is to ensure the CEPANI rule set meets user expectations for a modern, clear and efficient dispute resolution process. See: LNB News 14/04/2026 14. LMAA—2025 caseload statistics The London Maritime Arbitrators...

The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission ( UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘ F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed...

In this issue: Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Institutional and ad hoc arbitration ACICA—consults on revision of ACICA Arbitration Rules The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration ( ACICA) has opened a public consultation on updates to the ACICA Arbitration Rules. ACICA is seeking views on topics such as practice notes, artificial intelligence, settlement windows, sustainability, diversity, confidentiality, shifts in party representation, emergency arbitrator provisions, expedited proceedings, joinder, publishing anonymised decisions and awards, and an opt‑in appeals pathway. The revisions aim to reinforce ACICA’s longstanding commitment to a fair, efficient, prompt and cost‑effective arbitral process. Submissions are due by 18 May 2026. See: LNB News 02/04/2026 15. AIAC— Protocol for the Administration of Arbitrations by AIAC pursuant to the UNCITRAL...

A17- D17 [2026] ADGMCFI 0008 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling has significance in three principal respects. First, it makes clear that an award debtor cannot secure a stay in the ADGM merely by claiming an intention to contest the award at the seat. There must be an actual application, a cogent account for any delay, and a genuine chance both of winning any extension of time and of prevailing on the merits. That point matters for enforcement planning: a bare threat of a s 68 challenge in England is, by itself, unlikely to halt ADGM enforcement. Second, the judgment offers important guidance on confidentiality and the permissible use of information. Smith J regarded post-award enforcement as sufficiently linked to ‘this claim’ for the purposes of an information undertaking in a worldwide freezing order, permitting use of that material without...

Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd v ph AG [2026] SGHC 65 What are the practical implications of the case? Pin down the governing jurisdiction clause at the start, right at the outset, without delay, early too. For transactions spread across several contracts, each with its own dispute resolution term, the operative provision turns on the dispute’s ‘pith and substance’—the agreement most closely tied to the claims actually advanced. If the parties meant one clause to regulate the relationship as a whole, a primacy provision (here, a Term Sheet term stating that the Shareholders’ Agreement prevails in any inconsistency) is decisive. Where an exclusive jurisdiction clause applies, the ‘strong cause’ standard is engaged. The case underscores that, once such a clause is operative, the controlling inquiry is whether ‘strong cause’ exists to refuse a stay. The threshold is exacting—mere inconvenience and unfamiliarity with foreign law do not suffice, especially where these were...

What began with the EU’s assertion of the so‑called primacy of EU law over investment arbitration has since extended to unsettle sports arbitration and, more recently, evolved into an ‘effective review’ model enlarging the part played by national courts of EU Member States in examining commercial awards said to touch on EU public policy. These developments amplify the unpredictability surrounding arbitration across the EU. As a result, successful parties in international arbitrations seated within the EU may increasingly look to incorporate an international element into their strategies for enforcement and recovery... The Court of Justice’s initial hostility to Investment Arbitration Many will recall the Court of Justice’s 2018 ruling in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV and its 2021 decision in Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC. Emerging alongside a wave of arbitral awards ordering Spain to pay hundreds of millions to European...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration section Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Useful information Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court remits award under AA 1996, s 68, arbitrator denied reasonable opportunity to address implied term In Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Chucks Farm Ltd [2026] EWHC 742 ( Comm), the Commercial Court sustained Stonegate’s challenge to Award 2 under the Arbitration Act 1996 and directed that the matter be remitted to the arbitrator. Stonegate argued the damages award (circa £145,000 plus ongoing weekly losses) turned entirely on an implied obligation that, once the egg supply agreement ended, Stonegate would release—or at least not block the transfer of— Chucks Farm’s Lion Code...

Joseph Iosefa v Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc; Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc v Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1500 What are the practical implications of the case? The ruling offers significant direction on how to read and apply multi-tier dispute resolution provisions that map out sequential or alternative pathways to settle controversies, notably negotiation, arbitration, and court proceedings. It underscores the necessity for precise drafting, requiring parties to unmistakably record an intention that disputes are to be resolved only by arbitration if that is what they want. Where exclusivity is intended, the clause must say so in clear terms and avoid wording that permits litigation to re-emerge simply because the parties cannot agree procedural details of the arbitration. In this matter, the clause was not treated as a binding agreement to arbitrate, as the parties had contemplated resolving the dispute through...

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England and Wales Fraud challenge under English Arbitration Act—restrictions on appeal upheld The Court of Appeal in K1 v B [2026] EWCA Civ 261 determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal from a decision under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act). Section 68 allows a challenge to an award ‘on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award’, while section 68(4) limits any permission to appeal from such decisions to the first instance judge. This outcome underscores the Act’s emphasis on finality and efficiency, constraining appellate...

Petroleum Exploration ( PVT) Ltd v Frontier Holdings Ltd and another company [2026] EWHC 56 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment strengthens the Fiona Trust presumption in the specific setting of settlement agreements concluded to resolve earlier contractual disputes. In particular, where parties insert a fresh, broadly worded arbitration clause into a settlement agreement, the working assumption is that it is intended to operate as a single ‘one‑stop’ route for resolving all future disputes arising under the settlement, in the absence of unequivocally clear carve‑outs (see Fiona Trust Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40). When drafting or interpreting such arbitration clauses, parties and their legal representatives should: assume that the arbitration clause in the settlement agreement is the operative dispute resolution provision for any dispute between the parties concerning the implementation of, or alleged breach of, the...

Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti [2026] EWHC 418 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Although DPW’s bid did not succeed, the ruling reinforces that, when faced with security applications in these settings, the court will decide only after a fact-specific, contextual assessment of the individual case. As Waksman J emphasised, there is no blanket rule that a party added to proceedings can never be a ‘ Defendant’. Equally, there is no automatic position that such a party must always be treated as one. The court will take into account a range of considerations, which are not exhaustive, including the following: the character and purpose of the ‘claim’ pursued by the respondent to the security application who or what the claim is directed at the identity and nature of parties in the case other than the...

K1 v B [2026] EWCA Civ 261 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reinforces the tight constraints under English law on appeals from decisions addressing challenges to arbitral awards, including ‘serious irregularity’ claims. Section 68(4) of the Act is one of 17 provisions that restrict the authority to grant permission to appeal to the first instance judge. These statutory curbs advance the Act’s aims of speed and finality, cannot be displaced by party agreement or judicial order, and allow only very limited exceptions. Separately, the judgment reiterates that an arbitral award will not be set aside simply because the proceedings concerned a claim to enforce an illegal or unenforceable contract. Section 68(2)(g) of the Act permits a challenge where an award was procured by fraud (or offends public policy). The Applicant maintained that the award should be set aside on that...

DRL v DRK [2026] SGHC 32 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers significant direction on how Article 32(2)(c) of the Model Law—incorporated into Singapore law via section 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 ( IAA)—operates amid international sanctions. Article 32(2)(c) contemplates ending arbitral proceedings when further conduct is impossible. The court’s reasoning distils several core principles: Impossibility under Article 32(2)(c) is a factual, objective, binary assessment. If a tribunal concludes continuation is impossible, the mandatory ‘shall’ in Article 32(2) compels termination Once impossibility is shown, Article 32(2)(c) allows no assessment of prejudice to either side, nor any attribution of fault for the impossibility. This contrasts with Article 32(2)(a), which expressly gives the tribunal discretion to weigh a respondent’s legitimate interests when a claimant wishes to withdraw its claim The parties’ entitlement to a hearing on the merits under Article 24(1) of the Model Law is...