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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal highlights importance of making timely objection to tribunal In Czech Republic v Diag Human SE, the Court of Appeal allowed only one of three appeals, rejecting the rest of the challenges to an investment treaty award mounted under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The court set aside the award in favour of one party after ruling that it was not an ‘investor’ within the meaning of the relevant bilateral investment treaty. It also dismissed the respondents’ position that section 73 AA 1996 barred the appellant’s objections, and rejected the...
What are the practical implications of this case? The practical implications of this case are threefold. First, the Dutch courts consider EU state aid rules to extend to ECT arbitral awards even where the tribunal is seated beyond the EU. Here, Switzerland was selected as the seat. As all parties were European and proceeded on the basis that EU state aid rules bound them, the Amsterdam District Court found those rules also govern an ECT claim in arbitration outside the EU... Second, the tribunal’s conclusion that damages for an ECT breach align with the EU internal market was regarded as irrelevant by the District Court of Amsterdam, since the exclusive power to rule on state aid compatibility lies with the European Commission (and ultimately the Court of Justice)......
Gayatri Balasamy vs M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd 2025 INSC 605 What are the practical implications of this case? The majority ruling has sweeping ramifications: it effectively imports into the statute a judicial competence—deliberately withheld by Parliament—to alter an arbitral award. Section 34, which governs challenges to an award, expressly permits a court to set aside an award only on the limited grounds specified there, with no express authority to vary or revise the result. Section 37, which addresses appeals, including those taken from orders made on applications under Section 34, must be construed in concert with the Act’s overarching and fundamental premise of minimal judicial intervention, reflected in Section 5 of the Act. The judgment further recorded that, under the Arbitration Act, 1940—the immediate predecessor of the 1996 Act—courts were in fact empowered to modify an award. By contrast, the 1996 Act,...
Standing Mechanism for the resolution of international investment disputes In September 2024, WG III examined how tribunal members should be selected and appointed. The discussions were intense and highly detailed, with political ramifications. Briefly, the outcome was: Qualifications and requirements: priority on professional expertise and high competence; experience across roles and functions (such as arbitrator, judge, mediator or counsel) to be assessed holistically to ensure diversity in Tribunal composition; experience managing international disputes was noted; experience working with governments, including through the judiciary or the foreign or civil service. Candidates and members would be subject to the Code of conduct for judges in international investment dispute resolution, requiring independence and impartiality......
The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE [2025] EWCA Civ 588 What are the practical implications of this case? For those engaged in investment treaty arbitrations, this ruling is noteworthy for the Court of Appeal’s treatment of investment treaty jurisprudence on what it means to qualify as an ‘investor’ under BITs. The Court of Appeal determined that a legal entity which, on its own, did not satisfy the definition of ‘investor’ must be subject to de jure control—rather than merely de facto control—by a qualifying investor (here, an individual) to attain investor status. The judgment also provides helpful guidance on the reach and consequences of Articles 23 and 32 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ( UNCITRAL) Rules, addressing Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and Waiver of the right to object. More broadly, the decision will interest...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales 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 Exclusive jurisdiction clause in settlement agreement takes precedence over prior arbitration clause, rules English Court In Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 ( Ch), the High Court refused a bid to halt the litigation under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). It found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court in a subsequent settlement agreement took priority over arbitration clauses contained in earlier contracts. The ruling underlines that where parties finally resolve existing disputes in a fresh agreement, the settlement’s jurisdiction provision may oust earlier dispute...
Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision provides authoritative direction on how overlapping dispute resolution clauses interact, notably where a settlement follows earlier contracts containing arbitration terms. Taking a commercially pragmatic stance, the court confirmed that a later settlement incorporating a new jurisdiction clause will generally regulate all connected disputes thereafter, unless matters are expressly carved out. For legal practitioners, the consequences are twofold: When negotiating settlements, evaluate whether the parties intend to displace existing arbitration provisions; if they do not, the settlement must state that intention clearly and unequivocally. Exact drafting is vital. Broad jurisdiction wording in settlement or termination agreements can inadvertently override prior arbitral arrangements, particularly where claims, while referring to antecedent contracts, in truth arise from misrepresentation or other issues linked to the settlement...
The ad hoc committee’s decision of 6 March 2025 in Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v Kingdom of Norway sheds light on the procedural subtleties and evidential limits that frame annulment under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ( ICSID). The applicants, seeking to set aside an arbitral award, pursued targeted disclosure, anchoring their request in serious assertions of procedural impropriety and professional misconduct by the respondent, the Kingdom of Norway. The committee therefore had to decide whether to permit a disclosure phase at this late stage, assessing the purportedly exceptional circumstances advanced in support of the application. The order offers insight into the friction between the permissible ambit of evidence in annulment proceedings and the safeguarding of privilege and procedural regularity. It typifies the increasing sophistication of investor–state disputes and highlights the strict confines on reopening factual disputes...
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 Anti-suit injunctions and third parties In Manta Penyez Shipping Inc v Zuhoor Alsaeed Foodstuff Company [2025] EWHC 353 ( Comm), the court examined an application for an anti-suit injunction stemming from a charterparty dispute. The first claimant owned the vessel to which the charterparty related, while the second claimant owned another ship within the same group; the defendant acted as charterer. The claimants secured the injunction because (i) the defendant had agreed not to advance proceedings arising out of the charterparty in Yemen or Djibouti, and (ii) as the charterparty contained an LMAA arbitration clause, allowing proceedings to continue in Djibouti and Yemen would be vexatious and oppressive. See News Analysis: Anti-suit...
Central Bank of Iraq v Cardno Middle East Ltd, Paris Court of Appeal, 21 January 2025, No 23/05511 What are the practical implications of this case? The principal practical lessons from this judgment are: To begin with, the ruling underscores how limited international public policy objections truly are. The bar for setting aside an award on that basis remains extraordinarily high. Claims of fraud or misrepresentation between private parties are approached as matters of contract, not breaches of international public policy. Only behaviour offending core norms—such as corruption or money laundering—can ground annulment under Article 1520, 5 of the French Code of Civil Procedure ( FCCP). Where such points were not duly advanced during the arbitration, Article 1466 FCCP applies, treating as waived any irregularity not raised promptly. The message is unmistakable: parties cannot turn international public policy into a tool to overturn an...
US District Court for the District of Columbia Enforces ICSID award despite Croatia’s assertion of sovereign immunity ( MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas v Croatia) MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas PLC, Petitioner, v Republic of Croatia, Respondent, Civil Action No 23-218 ( AHA) What are the practical implications of this case? MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas carries concrete consequences for ECT signatories regarding enforcement of ICSID awards in the United States. Building on Next Era, the court confirmed that the ECT qualifies as an arbitration agreement under the FSIA, removing sovereign immunity for any ECT signatory attempting to resist enforcement of ECT-related ICSID awards in the United States. Crucially, MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas underscores that by adhering to the ECT, a state accepts exposure to US enforcement proceedings despite foreign-law disagreements over the ECT’s scope, thereby risking overlapping and potentially...
Orion Geradora de Energia Joint Venture 2 Ltda v Engie Brasil Energia Comercializadora Ltda, Apelação Cível No 0024255-13.2023.8.26.0100, Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo What are the practical implications of this case? The Brazilian Arbitration Act ( Federal Law No 9,307/1996) treats arbitral independence and impartiality as a cornerstone of the process. Accordingly, prospective arbitrators are bound to disclose any circumstance that might give rise to 'justified doubts' regarding their impartiality and independence. Moreover, disputes about an arbitrator's neutrality and autonomy may justify annulment of arbitral awards. In recent years, Brazilian courts have adopted differing views on what constitutes 'justified doubts' as to an arbitrator's impartiality and independence. They have also diverged on salient aspects, including: (a) whether the pertinent details are in the public domain; (b) how far the parties must co-operate to secure...
Anti-suit injunctions and third parties— Manta Penyez Shipping Inc & others v Zuhoor Alsaeed Foodstuff Company Manta Penyez Shipping Inc and another v Zuhoor Alsaeed Foodstuff Company [2025] EWHC 353 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of the case? What are the practical ramifications of this decision? They can be grouped into three points. When advisers prepare releases, guarantees and/or settlements, they should ensure the relevant provisions are wide enough to stop a party abandoning ongoing proceedings and then starting fresh proceedings to evade a non‑prosecution clause. Although, as a matter of construction or implication, the court is unlikely to allow that tactic, it is better to eliminate any doubt through careful wording of the clause. Litigators should keep in mind the often‑overlooked Contracts ( Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Although it is commonly excluded in contracts, where it is not, it may...
A17 V B17 and others; and A18 V B18 and another [2025] ADGMCFI 0001 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers welcome certainty on the ADGM Courts’ jurisdiction to issue worldwide freezing orders ( WFOs). Justice Sir Andrew Smith maps the distinctive features of the ADGM legal framework, clarifying the scope of the Court’s injunctive powers and why the direct transposition of certain English law principles is not always appropriate for the ADGM Courts. Against that background, his wholesale endorsement of the DIFC Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Carmon, and his emphasis on the principle of comity between the DIFC and ADGM Courts, will reassure practitioners who practise across these two free zone jurisdictions. At the same time, parties assessing where to enforce an arbitral award will be heartened by the ADGM Courts’ willingness to grant a WFO...
Nigeria LNG Ltd v Taleveras Petroleum Trading DMCC; Taleveras Petroleum Trading DMCC v Nigeria LNG Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 457 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal’s ruling offers significant direction on how to read arbitral awards that include both dispositive and non-dispositive parts. It emphasised that the dispositive portion is ordinarily where the tribunal’s binding orders reside, even if other sections—such as the reasons, analysis, or conclusion—allude to further duties or directions. The judgment underscores the need to frame awards so the reasoning is clearly distinguished from the operative components. Although form alone is not decisive, a lucid structure is essential for enforceability. The decision cautions against placing weight on wording beyond the dispositive section unless it is expressly folded into the tribunal’s ultimate orders. The court also reaffirmed that awards are to be construed in a...
JSC DTEK Krymenergo v The Russian Federation [2025] EWHC 1060 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers significant direction on how section 103(5) of the Act operates, empowering the English courts to pause enforcement of a foreign arbitral award while set-aside proceedings are on foot at the seat at the time. It underscores that the court’s discretion is broad and will be exercised by reference to the particular facts, striking a measured balance that scrutinises both the strength of the annulment challenge and any prejudice to the claimant that delay might cause in the circumstances of the case. For those practising in arbitration, the court made clear that a stay is not a given. A party opposing enforcement must demonstrate—consistently with the approach identified by Gross J in IPCO v NNPC—that the annulment bid is bona fide rather than...
DKB v DKC [2025] SGHC( I) 11 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment furnishes important guidance on enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Singapore in circumstances where a post-award settlement deed contains an arbitration agreement. The SICC held that: section 6 of the IAA (a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration) can apply to enforcement proceedings after an award has been issued, where the parties have later entered into a further agreement (such as a settlement deed) that places contractual limits on enforcement and requires disputes to be arbitrated the grounds for resisting enforcement under section 31 of the IAA are exhaustive when the challenge is directed at the award itself......
Versailles Court of Appeal, 10 December 2024, No 23/03647 ( X, S, Z, Citigroup Global Markets Inc) What are the practical implications of this case? The key practical takeaways of this ruling are as follows for practitioners and parties seeking award enforcement: By applying Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, the court held that a five-year limitation period governs exequatur applications for arbitral awards, thereby categorising the request for leave to enforce an arbitral award as a personal and movable action governed by the general statute of limitation. It further confirmed that the limitation period can be interrupted by enforcement or conservatory measures under Article 2244 of the French Civil Code. Nevertheless, where the claimant chooses to lift those measures, that interruption is treated as void, with the consequence that the period is treated as running from the date the award was...
In this issue: 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 International Arbitration Singapore—carve-out from restructuring moratorium granted in favour of arbitration In restructuring, it is vital that a debtor is afforded time and space to craft its plan. This is usually delivered by a moratorium, preventing third parties from initiating actions against the company or its assets. That safeguard can create friction with arbitration. In a pro-arbitration seat like Singapore, must the court invariably permit an exception to the moratorium to let a third party commence arbitration against the debtor? In Sapura Fabrication v GAS, the Singapore Court of Appeal ruled there is no automatic obligation to allow such a carve-out. The court, however, retains...
The European Commission’s 24 March 2025 decision, which classifies the arbitral award in Antin v Spain ( Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar B. V. (formerly Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B. V.) v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/13/31) as unlawful and incompatible state aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, represents one of the gravest tests yet to the enforceability of intra‑ EU investment arbitration awards. Building on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Achmea and Komstroy rulings, it imposes strict duties on EU Member States to resist recognition or enforcement of such awards, both at home and in non‑ EU fora. It also underscores the Commission’s far‑reaching view of its competence under state aid rules, with clear repercussions for investors’ legitimate expectations and their enforcement tactics. The conclusion has immediate, real‑world...
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
