Legal News

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 Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to construe other contracts In CAFI— Commodity & Freight Integrators DMCC v GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 ( Comm), Mr Justice Henshaw upheld challenges under section 67 (substantive jurisdiction) and section 68 (serious irregularity) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘ Act’), and also upheld a related appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. The decision examines the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s authority, particularly the situations in which a tribunal may interpret and determine the effect of a separate agreement over which it does not otherwise exercise...

CC/ DEVAS ( MAURITIUS) LTD v ANTRIX CORP LTD, 605 US ____ (2025) ( Consolidated with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd v Antrix Corp Ltd) What are the practical implications of this case? Devas v Antrix carries practical consequences for US parties pursuing claims in the United States against foreign sovereign states and their instrumentalities. The Court clarified that the FSIA alone governs when a foreign sovereign state can be deemed to have waived sovereign immunity. Accordingly, those suing foreign states and their instrumentalities, even where the instrumentality is a corporate body, need not undertake any additional ‘minimum contacts’ assessment to establish personal jurisdiction; meeting the FSIA’s own conditions is sufficient. The Court did not, however, decide the factual issue of whether the particular claims in this dispute come within the FSIA’s arbitration exceptions at the outset. The ruling bears on how courts...

Lawyers are increasingly alert to the threat posed by AI-produced material that can be virtually indistinguishable from genuine evidence. They also recognise that AI is being deployed to doctor videos and images, creating convincing fabrications. Joel Seager, a partner at Fladgate LLP, observed that technology moves so quickly it can be exploited across the disputes landscape to disrupt any stage of proceedings. He added that any role involving the presentation of evidence leaves room for bad-faith conduct, and that whenever testimony is required, there is scope to conjure an almost fictitious person to speak in someone’s place. The risks were starkly shown in a High Court decision on 6 June, which referred a barrister and a solicitor to their regulators after two matters in which numerous case law citations were submitted that either did not exist or contained invented passages. Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that...

Stephen P. Younger, Senior Counsel, Withers, New York Iain Sandford, Senior Counsel, Foley Hoag, Paris Cynthia H. Cwik, Mediator and Arbitrator, JAMS, San Diego Eugenie Rogers, Partner, Reed Smith LLP, Dallas Rebeca Mosquera, President, Arbitral Women, New York Fiona Cain, Counsel, Haynes Boone, London Jack Spence, Associate, Haynes Boone, London Albert Bates Jr., Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP, Pittsburgh R. Zachary Torres- Fowler, Senior Associate, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP, Philadelphia and New York Omer Er, Partner at Michelman & Robinson, New York Hillary Kinsey Lukacs, Counsel, Morris, Manning, & Martin, LLP, Atlanta Jack Donnelly, Associate, Morris, Manning, & Martin, LLP, Atlanta Bo Rutledge, Senior Counsel, Morris, Manning, & Martin, LLP, Atlanta Mealey’s: Have AI tools contributed to efficiency in international arbitration, such as organisation of discovery materials, review of expert...

CC/ Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd and other companies v The Republic of India [2025] EWHC 964 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision may reshape multi-jurisdictional enforcement strategies. Where states resist arbitral award enforcement, investors may need to turn to alternative avenues, including diplomatic engagement or concurrent enforcement in jurisdictions with broader immunity exceptions. Dual Hurdles: To enforce against a sovereign, claimants must clear both jurisdictional immunity (under s 2 or s 9) and enforcement immunity (s 13) Strategic Risks: States may deploy delay tactics by disputing arbitration agreements, as illustrated by India’s parallel challenges across courts worldwide Recent decisions from Canada, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Australia reveal differing approaches to sovereign immunity in BIT enforcement, making forum selection a pivotal strategic choice. If the Supreme Court overturns the Commercial Court, NYC ratification alone could suffice to displace...

‘ Blue Gas Holding’ ( Republic of Poland v PD, Swedish Supreme Court Case No. T 555-24) What are the practical implications of this case? The Swedish Supreme Court has signalled a pro‑arbitration posture in Blue Gas Holding, offering clearer direction on how far the Court of Justice’s Achmea doctrine extends. Put briefly, where a non‑ EU investor’s discrete stake within a broader investment can be identified separately from EU investors’ interests, a tribunal seated in Sweden may take jurisdiction over that individual claim. Consequently, Sweden‑seated tribunals could now accept jurisdiction in scenarios where some tribunals, until recently, might have reached the opposite conclusion. Nonetheless, determining jurisdiction demands a rigorous examination of res judicata, a factor that can complicate proceedings and outcomes. Following Blue Gas Holding, a key issue in mixed investor disputes—those involving both EU and non‑ EU...

Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd vs M/ S Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd Civil Appeal No 5297 of 2025 What are the practical implications of this case? Under section 21 of the A& C Act, a party need not name all parties in the notice of arbitration ( NOA), nor in an application under section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator (s 11 Application). The arbitral tribunal may join a party at a subsequent stage; its jurisdiction does not derive from the NOA or the s 11 Application. The Supreme Court has reiterated the tribunal’s authority to determine whether a party has consented to arbitration. Where a non-signatory is impleaded in a s 11 Application, the court must take a prima facie view on the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties to that application; this view is not binding on the arbitral tribunal. In the end, the arbitral...

On 2 May 2025, the Supreme Court of the UK declined permission to appeal in The Kingdom of Spain v The London Steam- Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd [2025] UKSC 24 This procedural closure ended the Spanish state’s decades‑long effort to enforce an €855m judgment of its own highest court against the London Steam‑ Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd, insurer of the ill‑fated M/ T Prestige. Framed by one of Europe’s worst environmental disasters — a vast oil spill off the Galician coast — and a maze of cross‑border legal regimes, the dispute laid bare the increasingly intricate interplay between arbitral sovereignty, foreign state immunity, and the evolving landscape of post‑ Brexit private international law. Across more than twenty years, the litigation became a touchstone for wider tensions: civil law traditions permitting direct tort actions against insurers versus common law’s emphasis on...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales 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 English court’s authority to grant injunctive relief to safeguard arbitral confidentiality A Corporation v Firm B [2025] EWHC 1092 ( Comm) arose from the claimant’s bid for interim injunctive measures (the “ Application”). It sought, among other things, to bar the first defendant (“ Firm B”)—including any of its branches—from (i) acting for Corporation C in a pending arbitration against Corporation D (the “ Second Arbitration”); and (ii) sharing with Corporation C confidential material from an earlier arbitration between the claimant and Corporation B (the “ First Arbitration”). In deciding the Application, the court applied the American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd...

Bayerische Landesbank & Others v Rus Chem Alliance LLC ( Rev1) [2025] EWHC 924 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The key authorities in this field are Uni Credit Bank Gmb H v Rus Chem Alliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, where, among other points, the Supreme Court approved the issue of ASIs in the circumstances ( Uni Credit 1), and Uni Credit Bank Gmb H v Rus Chem Alliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99, where, among other matters, the Court of Appeal held that the English courts can set aside a final injunction ( Uni Credit 2). Building on the Court of Appeal’s steer in Uni Credit 2, Mr Justice Foxton delineates the ambit of the English court’s discretion, under CPR 3.1(7), to discharge ASIs and related orders or declarations. The judgment confirms that the English courts possess...

The conference opened with remarks from Robert Pickel, Chair of the P. R. I. M. E. Finance Foundation; Professor Yael Diamant, senior legal counsel at De Nederlandsche Bank and Professor of Financial Networks and European Property Law at Tilburg University; and Dr. Hab. Marcin Czepelak, Secretary- General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Their contributions framed a day devoted to substantive debate on legal change, market dynamics, and the resolution of global financial disputes... ‘ View from the Derivatives World: Key Takeaways from the 39th ISDA AGM’ The opening panel gathered experienced market practitioners to assess shifts across derivatives and the wider financial system. Guided by Rick Grove (chief executive officer and partner, Rutter Associates LLC ( New York); P. R. I. M. E. Finance Expert and Advisory Board Member), the discussion surveyed headline outcomes from the 39th International Swaps and...

On 1 March 2025, the updated Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Centre of the Lima Chamber of Commerce (the CCL Arbitration Rules 2025) took effect. This version adds provisions aligned with international best practice and the frameworks of leading arbitral institutions. Nonetheless, the regulation seems unfinished: gaps remain that should be closed to secure predictable and efficient CCL-administered arbitrations. This article examines the key changes on scrutiny of awards, residual appointment of arbitrators, procedural calendars, and time limits. Scrutiny of the award In step with institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC), the CCL Arbitration Rules 2025 create a scrutiny process for arbitral awards. This acts as a quality control tool, aimed at lowering annulment risk by ensuring the award’s formal and substantive robustness. Scrutiny is not mandatory; it depends on the parties’...

US District Judge Carl J Nichols dismissed Russia’s contention that the arbitration-related exception to sovereign immunity was inapplicable merely because it had signed, but not ratified, the Energy Charter Treaty, the instrument relied upon by Yukos Capital Ltd. He held that Russia was blurring the distinction between whether it had consented to arbitrate its dispute with Yukos Capital and the anterior jurisdictional issue of whether an arbitration agreement exists at all. Russia further maintained that its domestic law forbids arbitration of public-law disputes; however, Nichols J observed that the Russian statutory wording in play only indicates that arbitrability turns on Russian federal law. It does not specify when that law precludes arbitration, still less show that Russia never concluded an agreement to arbitrate certain disputes. Russia also asserted it had not been duly served with the proceedings. On that aspect, the judge...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal rules non-party barred from appealing fraud findings under AA 1996, s 68(4) In Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Development Ltd ( P& ID) [2025] EWCA Civ 715, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal aimed at overturning the High Court’s order setting aside a US$11bn arbitral award for fraud and serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). Although he was not a party to the arbitration, Mr Seamus Andrew attempted to challenge particular findings made by the High Court. He attacked Justice Knowles’ judgment on five bases, alleging procedural unfairness, including inadequate notice and no opportunity to address...

A Corporation v Firm B and another [2025] EWHC 1092 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling makes clear that confidentiality obligations reach across the arbitral hearing and process, capturing not only any transcript or note, but also documents disclosed by one party to others, as well as material created or prepared for, and then used or produced in, the arbitration, together with the award itself. Accordingly, lawyers and their clients must adopt robust confidentiality procedures to avoid any unauthorised release of such material, thereby preserving the privacy and integrity of the arbitral process. The decision also exposes the practical strains for international law firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions. Here, the court recorded that certain lawyers in the First defendant’s London office who had worked on the First Arbitration agreed to step aside from the Second...

What are the practical implications of this case? Parties often propose, and sometimes agree, to appoint one or more common arbitrators in connected proceedings, hoping to promote consistent reasoning and outcomes. This judgment is a clear reminder that procedural fairness must always prevail. Even when arbitrations are closely related and run in sequence or in parallel, each tribunal member must carry out their adjudicative role independently and impartially. Thus, although it is not inherently improper for the same arbitrators to hear related disputes and to reach similar conclusions on overlapping questions, due process remains the ultimate requirement. The SICC observed that a shared arbitrator is not devoid of prior knowledge, yet must avoid allowing conclusions from one case to shut out proper consideration of the evidence and arguments in the other. In short, coherence across proceedings is acceptable; deciding by rote is not. Each...

Iran National Iranian Oil Company ‘ NIOC’ v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd and Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd 200.323.344/01 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision turns on the doctrine of asymmetrical appeal in relation to the grant of exequaturs for foreign arbitral awards. Although determined under the Netherlands’ former arbitration statute, it is equally relevant under the current regime, as the pertinent rules are unchanged. To enforce an arbitral award in the Netherlands, a party must first secure recognition and leave to enforce (exequatur) from a Dutch court. For domestic awards, exequatur applications are usually routine and often proceed ex parte (ie without hearing the other party), whereas applications concerning foreign awards are more substantive and heard on a contested basis. Even so, as in many other jurisdictions and consistent with the New York Convention, the grounds on which a Dutch court may...

Ruling unanimously, the US justices held that, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( FSIA), courts possess personal jurisdiction whenever an immunity exception applies and the defendant has been duly served. They added that the FSIA does not oblige courts to undertake the ‘minimum contacts’ analysis — a jurisdictional test assessing whether a non-resident defendant has sufficient ties to the US — and observed that the statute contains no reference to ‘minimum contacts’. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote, Congress omitted any such requirement, and the Act was intended to clarify the governing standards rather than conceal them. The court therefore reversed and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit. The dispute arises from efforts by satellite communications company Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd and its shareholders to enforce a US$1.3bn arbitral award against Antrix Corp Ltd, the state-owned commercial division of India’s space agency,...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales 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 Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales CAFI - Commodity & Freight Integrators DMCC v GTCS Trading DMCC The significant ruling in CAFI - Commodity & Freight Integrators DMCC v GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 ( Comm) has been issued. The Commercial Court upheld the buyer’s ( CAFI) challenges to a GAFTA Appeal Award under ss 67 (substantive jurisdiction), 68 (serious procedural irregularity) and 69 (appeal on a point of law) of the English Arbitration Act 1996. GTCS, as seller of a shipment of Russian milling wheat, had pursued arbitration seeking damages against CAFI for alleged breaches of two contracts. That claim failed at first instance but succeeded before the GAFTA Appeal Board. The court concluded that the Appeal Board was wrong to...

DMF… Applicant and DMG… Respondent [2025] SGHC( I) 12 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision traverses several themes of immediate interest to practitioners. It draws together principles and procedural points of real practical relevance. First, it underscores English law principles on construing contracts, and the correct method for applying those principles to identify the contracting parties (a task the court confirmed is no different for charterparties than for any other agreement). Second, it offers a helpful example of how prior inconsistent positions in earlier proceedings may matter, including whether, and in what circumstances, such conduct could found issue estoppel, amount to an abuse of process, or constitute approbation and reprobation). Third, it confirms that parties cannot sidestep their agreement to arbitrate by asserting the contract is unenforceable or non‑arbitrable on the basis of illegality or public policy; the...