Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
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 hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
V and another v K; K v V and another [2025] EWHC 1704 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling in V v K underscores the paramount importance of strict procedural adherence in litigation arising out of arbitration. Practitioners should ensure prompt applications for permission to appeal are made at the judgment hand-down hearing, or alternatively seek a formal adjournment where required. If that step is missed, the court below lacks jurisdiction to grant permission at a later date. Moreover, failing to provide draft grounds of appeal at the relevant time is contrary to the Commercial Court Guide and can seriously jeopardise the chances of any subsequent appeal. The court made clear that where a party cannot set out, concisely, draft grounds explaining why the judgment is said to be wrong, it is highly unlikely to conclude that an appeal has a...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitration Act 2025 fully in force 1 August 2025 The Arbitration Act 2025 ( AA 2025) will come fully into effect on 1 August 2025 (see LNB News 24/07/2025 14). Practitioners should be aware that the amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996) set out in sections 1–14 of the 2025 Act will not apply to: arbitral proceedings begun before 1 August 2025 court proceedings (whenever started) connected to pre-commencement arbitral proceedings or to an award from such proceedings any other court proceedings commenced before 1 August 2025 (see AA 2025, s...
Tecnicas Reunidas Saudia for Services & Contracting Co Ltd v Petroleum Chemicals and Mining Company Ltd [2025] EWHC 1785 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Five key points emerge from the judgment. Parties must follow the arbitration machinery exactly as agreed. Institutional and ad hoc processes are not substitutes. Where several contractual instruments contain inconsistent clauses, the party commencing proceedings must locate the clause with priority and act in line with it. The court’s dismissal of the tribunal’s ‘pick and mix’ method confirms that the chosen arbitral framework is a fundamental element of the parties’ agreement. A challenge under AA 1996, s 67 does not require the claimant to prove any prejudice. If the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the award must be set aside. The ruling also underlines how AA 1996, s 73 functions: once the tribunal has...
What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries procedural weight for arbitration specialists and litigators handling appeals against exequatur orders concerning foreign arbitral awards. It underscores the necessity of carefully separating a demand to reverse the order from a demand to have it annulled. Practitioners should be aware that only an application to overturn the exequatur order triggers the Court of Appeal to undertake a complete review on the merits, akin to the scrutiny applied in actions to annul an international award made in France. By contrast, setting aside an exequatur order is available solely where the order does not meet the formal conditions in Article 458 FCCP, or where the judge has exceeded his or her powers. The court made plain that a claim to set aside the exequatur order is admitted only in narrow...
Wuhu Ruyi Xingo Investment Partnership v European Topshoro S.a.r.l [2025] SGCA 32 What are the practical implications of this case? Unless Orders are ordinarily directed at parties who have failed to comply with court directions (for instance, to give disclosure), particularly where the court views the breach as intentional. The fall-out from ignoring an Unless Order is deliberately stringent, potentially resulting in pleadings being struck out or the claim being dismissed entirely. This decision underscores that Unless Orders are to be observed to the letter as mechanisms to secure obedience to court orders, and that the court will not allow parties to indulge in tactical manoeuvres by selectively ignoring Unless Orders. The judgment further clarifies that these principles equally govern matters involving international arbitration and the New York Convention. The court rejected the proposition that this amounts to a novel basis to resist...
Celebrating 45 years of leadership in alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) Marking 45 years at the forefront of ADR, the CAM- CCBC closed 2024 with unprecedented activity and an ever-widening reach. Throughout the year as a whole, it logged 148 new matters—129 arbitrations and 19 mediations—raising the number of live cases to well over 480, with parties from 16 nationalities. The value in dispute in cases filed in 2024 comfortably topped US$1bn. Altogether, 91 arbitration proceedings came to an end, and 60 produced arbitral awards: 46 were final awards and 14 were consent awards. The average timeframe to resolve these disputes was 26 months. A clear drive for swifter proceedings was evident in the 21 new expedited arbitrations under the CAM- CCBC fast-track protocol, which requires resolution within ten months, reaffirming the institution’s focus on procedural speed and...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales The Arbitration Act 2025 ( Commencement) Regulations 2025 The Act revises the Arbitration Act 1996 on how arbitral proceedings are conducted and overseen in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. It adds rules on the governing law of arbitration agreements, arbitrators’ disclosure duties, emergency arbitrators, and the court’s supportive powers in aid of arbitration. Having received Royal Assent in February 2025, it will take full effect on 1 August 2025, pursuant to the Arbitration Act 2025 ( Commencement) Regulations 2025 ( SI 2025/905 ( C. 41)). The Regulations bring the reforms into operation across these jurisdictions. See the SI dated 16th July 2025 and available...
Energyen Corporation v HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 1586 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision furnishes a clear overview of the principles informing the English courts’ handling of the effect of overseas corporate reorganisations, in the setting of challenges to arbitral awards under AA 1996, s 67. It explains the courts’ method for analysing how corporate succession bears upon English law contracts concluded before any restructuring, and the continuing status of the arbitration agreements embedded in those contracts. The strike rate of s 67 jurisdictional challenges to awards has remained consistently low, and that picture is expected to endure following the commencement of the Arbitration Act 2025 (which takes effect on 1 August 2025). The new legislation will underpin updated court rules that will, among other matters, limit parties’...
J PMorgan Chase Bank NA v VTB Bank PJSC The 5 June ruling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in this case stands as a landmark statement on the authority of the English courts to grant anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, at a time when cross-border banking conflicts routinely span numerous legal systems. Emerging from intricate demand guarantee arrangements and concurrent Russian litigation, the judgment firmly reasserts English jurisdictional precedence where parties have agreed to exclusive arbitration clauses. Central to the decision is a judicial insistence on the sanctity of bargain amid an international banking landscape marked by sovereign intrusion and simultaneous suits. The dispute traces back to JPMorgan Chase’s issuance of a demand guarantee for VTB Bank, expressly governed by English law and containing exclusive London Court of International Arbitration ( LCIA) provisions....
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitration representation and section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 The Commercial Court in Republic of India v CC/ Devas [2025] EWHC 1738 ( Comm) ordered that four threshold questions be resolved before addressing India’s section 45 Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996) application, which challenged an earlier procedural decision of the arbitral tribunal. India maintained that the English-seated tribunal was required to apply Mauritian law exclusively when determining who could represent the claimant companies. The court permitted the directors/shareholders to intervene and concluded that addressing the preliminary points—such as whether the section 45 application was properly made or was in...
Significant skirmishes have unfolded in state courts across the country, yet they rarely garner the publicity of the US Supreme Court’s regular rulings construing the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA). Ordinarily, state contract principles control how arbitration pacts are formed and whether they are valid. Accordingly, opponents of arbitration urge tighter state-law thresholds for enforcing the terms shown to consumers in online purchases, where arbitration provisions often appear. Moreover, even though the FAA generally pre-empts state rules that do not ‘place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts’—as the Court explained in its 2011 decision in AT& T Mobility LLC v Concepcion—certain state benches have embraced tougher tests for arbitration clauses, asserting those tests also reach other contracts sharing comparable characteristics. Such state-law rulings can dramatically shape whether arbitration agreements are enforced—which may decide whether a matter proceeds to...
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India [2025] EWHC 1553 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The Commercial Court Report 2023–2024, released in February 2025, notes a 242% year‑on‑year rise in challenges brought under AA 1996, s 67. Set against the previous period, however, the picture is more muted: translated into absolute terms the increase is from seven to 24 jurisdiction applications in 2023–2024, so the headline percentage risks overstating the trend without context. Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India sits within the even rarer class of successful section 67 challenges; in 2023–2024 there was only one such success recorded. Given how small the dataset is, Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India should not be treated as heralding a surge of judicial activism in relation to section 67...
The Republic of India v CC/ Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd (in administration) and other companies ( CC/ Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd and other companies, intervening) [2025] EWHC 1738 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment supplies clear direction on the boundaries of judicial intervention under AA 1996, s 45 where an arbitral tribunal has already resolved a procedural point—namely, who is authorised to represent the parties in the arbitration. It emphasises that s 45 should not be deployed to re‑argue determinations the tribunal has made, particularly where those determinations engage knotty questions of representation, public policy, and international law. The decision also brings into focus the procedural pitfalls that can arise in BIT arbitrations when insolvency or administration proceedings in a claimant’s home jurisdiction generate competing instructions or mandates in practice......
P& ID asks UK Supreme Court to convert £44m costs to naira At a hearing, Process & Industrial Developments Ltd ( P& ID) pressed the UK Supreme Court to translate the £44m it has been ordered to pay Nigeria into naira, asserting that, because the currency has fallen sharply since 2023, Nigeria would otherwise gain an unwarranted windfall of about 70bn naira. The costs arise from Nigeria’s successful High Court challenge to the arbitral award made in 2017 in favour of P& ID, tied to a natural gas refinery and electricity generation project that unravelled. In October 2023, Judge Robin Knowles concluded that the award had been secured through fraud and bribery. Knowles J also held that the company’s legal team, including Trevor Burke KC and commercial solicitor Seamus Andrew, hid the fact they had obtained Nigeria’s privileged legal advice and other internal documents during the...
In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information International arbitration Singapaore—anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration In CMC v (1) DOW (2) MB, the Singapore International Commercial Court ( SICC) granted an anti‑suit injunction ( ASI) to halt overseas proceedings brought to contest an arbitral tribunal’s decision. Singapore was the seat of the arbitration, and the Singapore courts had exclusive authority to determine any such challenge. Setting out the principles governing ASIs, the court concluded the criteria were fulfilled and there was no convincing reason to withhold relief on the facts. Although the defendant had links to a foreign government, it was not entitled to sovereign immunity because it was a ‘separate entity’ and the...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Sector- and industry-specific arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Legal representative for P& ID seeks to appeal critical findings against him to the Court of Appeal In The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 715, Seamus Andrew sought leave to challenge High Court findings that strongly criticised his conduct. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, ruling it was lodged out of time and that permission ought to have been requested at first instance. It also indicated that, even had permission been granted, the appeal would have been...
Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti- CMC di Ravenna, Italy…claimants; and (1) Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu (2) Melamchi Water Supply Development Board… Defendants [2025] SGHC( I) 16 What are the practical implications of this case? The case sets out a helpful synthesis of the principles governing ASIs, drawing a line between contractual and non-contractual ASIs. In the context of proceedings begun in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court emphasised that party autonomy lies at the heart of international dispute resolution and empowers parties to decide how their quarrels are to be settled. Where parties have chosen a particular route, the courts will hold them to that bargain. Thus, if a party starts foreign court proceedings contrary to an arbitration agreement, there is ‘no good reason for diffidence’ in issuing an ASI to restrain those proceedings, on the...
GML Ltd statement GML Ltd, the parent of investors Hulley Enterprises Ltd and Yukos Universal Ltd, said in a statement that on 27 June the UK Supreme Court refused the Kremlin’s bid to resurrect its state immunity arguments. A spokesperson for the company told Law360 they learned of the decision on 30 June 2025, although it did not appear to have been placed in the public domain by the afternoon of 30 June 2025. GML added that, having concluded it “does not raise an arguable point of law”, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has today dismissed the Russian Federation’s last outstanding appeal against the Court of Appeal’s unanimous judgment of 12 February, which confirmed that Russia was not entitled to state immunity in the recognition and enforcement proceedings brought by the former Yukos majority shareholders. “ This represents an important victory in our quest for...
Aryan ( SEA) Private Ltd and Pure Group ( Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 99 What are the practical implications of this case? When to press ahead with a statutory demand and when to wait Singapore courts remain aligned with the more generous An An approach when asked to restrain winding up applications. So long as a respondent advances a substantial defence or puts forward a cross-claim, and the dispute falls within an arbitration clause, the courts will grant an injunction to halt a winding up application, provided there is no abuse of process. This stands in clear contrast to the position elsewhere, such as the Privy Council’s recent decision in Sian Participation, which requires the debtor to show the liability is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. In Aryan, the High Court viewed itself as bound by the Court of Appeal’s ruling in An An, and...
V & another v K—guidance on disclosure and bias in maritime arbitrations V and another; K v V and another [2025] EWHC 1523 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision confirms that, in LMAA references, an arbitrator owes no duty to disclose that the same law firm has instructed them on multiple, unrelated matters. Within the London maritime sphere, it is longstanding practice for parties and their solicitors to select the same tribunal members across a range of disputes, and to do so without issuing any disclosure about repeat appointments. That pattern is a feature of a compact, specialist marketplace, and is well known to, and accepted by, those who regularly operate within it. The judgment also conveniently identifies a series of considerations that the fair-minded observer would treat as bearing on the question of apparent bias......
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
