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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
EU AI Act could drive a rise in M& A arbitration activity As the EU Artificial Intelligence Act ( EU AI Act) begins to take hold, parties that prefer arbitration for resolving disputes in their M& A agreements would be well advised to weigh how that choice can function as a tool for risk management and mitigation in practice. Accordingly, deal participants selecting arbitration in their M& A deal agreement should take time to consider its use as a means of risk management. EU AI Act The long-awaited EU AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024, with the bulk of its rules commencing in August 2026. The legislation is wide in scope and broadly affects EU-based companies that use or supply AI systems anywhere, international companies operating in the EU, and any company producing AI content that is used within the EU. The Act sorts AI...
Key features of the SIAC Rules 2025 The SIAC Rules 2025 present a wide array of procedural mechanisms that users can tailor to what best serves their particular dispute. These comprise: Emergency arbitration to secure urgent interim or conservatory measures before the tribunal is formed, together with a newly introduced ability to seek a ‘protective preliminary order’ without prior notice to the other parties Streamlined and expedited procedures for lower-value claims, employing a simplified arbitration process and a sole arbitrator Options for consolidation of arbitrations and joinder of parties A newly added facility to coordinate arbitrations, where the same tribunal is consolidated and there is a common question of law or fact The tribunal is also vested with extensive powers to promote a fair, swift, and cost‑effective resolution of the dispute and to support the...
In this issue: Arbitration under the AA 1996 Act International Arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments The Arbitration Blog Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration under the AA 1996 Act Irreconcilable arbitral awards and judgments—injunctions, State immunity, res judicata and equitable compensation The English Court of Appeal (‘the court’), in The Kingdom of Spain v The London Steam- Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1536, upheld the judge’s refusal to recognise a Spanish judgment against The London Steam- Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (‘the Club’) under the Brussels I Regulation. This was because an arbitrator had already ruled that claims against the Club had to be brought in arbitration and that the Club had no...
Towards a ‘ Maximalist’ approach in the control of international public policy Historically, owing to the French courts’ pro‑arbitration posture, the annulment judge embraced a ‘minimalist’ lens when testing whether recognition and enforcement of an award offended international public policy. Designed to preserve the integrity of arbitration, that stance imposed a demanding threshold for establishing a breach, as outlined below. From 2012 onward, however, the French Supreme Court and the Paris Court of Appeal signalled a move towards a more exacting line. The ‘minimalist’ approach As framed in the Paris Court of Appeal’s 2004 Thalès ruling and later affirmed by the French Supreme Court in the 2008 Cytec decision: any infringement of international public policy had to be ‘flagrante, effective et concrète’ ( Thalès, para [31]; Cytec, last para.); the annulment judge was not allowed to revisit the arbitral tribunal’s reasoning, nor to take into account fresh...
The Kingdom of Spain v The London Steam- Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd and other cases [2024] EWCA Civ 1536 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision from the English Court of Appeal confirms that a final arbitral award gives rise to res judicata, constituting a public policy basis to refuse recognition or registration of a judgment, and again underscores the English courts’ backing for arbitration and the New York Convention. That said, the ruling highlights the real-world difficulties for parties confronted with overlapping State-initiated proceedings, and the perils of declining to engage in litigation abroad. It also clarifies that arbitrators have no power to issue injunctions restraining States from commencing proceedings, and that neither arbitrators nor the courts can grant damages against States as a substitute for an injunction under SCA 1981, s 50. The decision serves as a reminder of the...
Here are five cases to watch over the next year. Next Era Energy v Spain, 9REN Holding v Spain and Blasket Renewable Investments v Spain In August 2024, the DC Circuit ruled that about US$377m in arbitral awards against Spain are enforceable, even though they are treated as invalid under EU law. The stage is therefore set for a possible US Supreme Court clash in 2025, which EU investors will monitor closely. Whatever the justices determine will have wide-reaching implications, as courts within the EU continue to decline enforcement of intra- EU awards like those in these disputes. The DC Circuit also found that US district courts hold jurisdiction to enforce awards issued against Spain stemming from the rollback of economic incentives for renewable energy projects. Its ruling bears on enforcement not only of these particular awards, but also of over a dozen other...
Barclays Bank plc v VEB. RF [2024] EWHC 3088 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is an uncommon example of the court permitting resort to the English courts to decide issues of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction under AA 1996, s 32. Judge Pelling KC stressed that turning to the court via section 32 is exceptional rather than routine. The decision shows the English courts seeking to balance two objectives: respecting tribunals’ power to determine their own jurisdiction under AA 1996, s 30; and intervening to oversee the arbitral process in appropriate, rare situations, particularly to secure procedural efficiencies and reduce costs. Overall, it reflects careful support for arbitral autonomy, coupled with limited and targeted supervision designed to promote economy in the arbitral procedure. It also confirms the courts’ readiness to hold parties to the valid terms of...
In this issue: Arbitration under the AA 1996 Act Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Further arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration Highlights 2024/2025 Arbitration under the AA 1996 Act Timing is everything—strict approach followed in construing contractual time limits In Eronat v CNPC International and another [2024] EWHC 2880 ( Comm), the parties adopted a tailored clause granting a right to appeal an award within 30 days from the date the arbitral decision was ‘rendered’. This contrasted with the LCIA Rules’ default position, which provide no appeal right. Applying a stringent reading of ‘rendered’ and rejecting a challenge under section 69 of the Arbitration Act, the court ruled that the time period began on the date the award was made, rather than when it was notified to the...
Eronat v CPNC International ( Chad) Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 2880 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Under certain arbitral rules, such as the LCIA Rules, parties commonly waive any right to appeal an award under the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). That exclusion can, however, be modified by contract. In this matter, the parties agreed a tailored right to appeal within 30 days of the award, where the tribunal had erred in fact and/or law. Although focused on a bespoke clause, the judgment operates as a reminder to heed relevant time limits and to move swiftly if an appeal is intended. It also offers a cautionary note for parties who, by agreement, aim to reduce the finality of arbitration: select wording carefully and reflect on how it will be construed alongside the practical steps inherent in the...
The Micula saga is complex and turbulent, marked by a UK determination of an EU law breach four years after Brexit, rulings from courts in the United States, and fresh EU law pronouncements by EU institutions. Recent turns now leave Romania contending with clashing duties. Romania stands as an ICSID award debtor, with enforcement allowed by both UK and US courts. At the same time, the Commission has barred Romania from making payments to satisfy the award. As a result, Romania faces a stark choice: breach its obligations under EU law, or those under the ICSID Convention and the Romania– Sweden bilateral investment treaty ( BIT). In principle, the presence of conflicting international duties (a proverbial pickle) does not excuse non‑compliance, and international responsibility would follow. Whether Romania identifies a legally viable path or weighs other...
In this issue: Arbitration under the AA 1996 Act 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 under the AA 1996 Act England and Wales—arbitration or not arbitration? A revised litigation funding arrangement included a term enabling any party to have a dispute determined by a KC, whose opinion would be final and binding. In Bugsby Property LLC v Omni Bridgeway ( Fund 5) Cayman Invt Ltd [2024] EWHC 2986 ( Comm), the court concluded the claimant lacked a good arguable case that this provision constituted an arbitration agreement, and therefore the court could not appoint an arbitrator under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996. See News Analysis: Arbitration or not...
The latest caseload figures from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes indicate that 341 proceedings were administered in the 2024 financial year, with 58 fresh cases registered—both rankings the second‑highest in ICSID’s records. With such a volume of investor–state controversies, a pressing issue is whether states can rely on state immunity to prevent the registration of ICSID awards made against them. In a conjoined appeal decided on 22 October 2024 involving Spain and Zimbabwe ( Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sarl and another v The Kingdom of Spain; Border Timbers Ltd and another v Republic of Zimbabwe [2024] EWCA Civ 1257), the English Court of Appeal reinforced England’s reputation as a creditor‑friendly, pro‑arbitration jurisdiction. It confirmed that adjudicative immunity is not a defence available to contracting states under the 1965 ICSID...
Ashok Kumar Goel, Vyoman India Private Ltd, v Ebix Cash Ltd & others, No 25579 of 2024 What are the practical implications of this case? This matter closely examines what amounts to an arbitral award and how it is to be distinguished from an order. Drawing on the landmark judgment in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd and Others (2022) 1 SCC 209 (the Amazon.com Case), which recognised emergency arbitration, the court concluded that an emergency arbitrator’s award is, in substance, an order. The label attached to a decision cannot, by itself, demarcate ‘award’ from ‘order’; it is the essence of the determination that provides the real distinction. Only where the decision adjudicates any part of the merits of the dispute will it qualify as an arbitral award. With enforcement of foreign-seated emergency arbitration decisions in India still uncertain, this ruling offers a...
Bugsby Property Llc and another company v Omni Bridgeway ( Fund 5) Cayman Invt Ltd and another company [2024] EWHC 2986 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underlines that: whether a provision amounts to an arbitration agreement is a matter of construction, so each clause must be interpreted within its particular context if the agreement also contains a separate arbitration clause, and the wording of the two differs markedly, that contrast may suggest the clause was not intended to operate as an arbitration agreement where the contract offers two arbitral (or other dispute resolution) routes, there is no presumption of a broad and liberal construction for one mechanism ( Barclays Bank v Nylon Capital LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 826) care is required when drafting dispute resolution provisions, especially where more than one process is...
COSCO Shipping Specialised Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others and another matter [2024] SGCA 50 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers a concise distillation of the governing principles for assessing whether foreign litigation falls within the scope of an arbitration clause—and is thus brought in contravention of that clause—for the purpose of seeking an anti-suit injunction. It furnishes significant guidance on the bearing of cognate jurisprudence concerning applications to stay court actions in favour of arbitration under s 6 of the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994, and sets out the proper yardstick for deciding whether there is a ‘dispute arising out of or in connection with’ the parties’ contract where a contractual defence, or a reasonably foreseeable contractual defence, exists to a tort claim, and/or where a contractual cross‑claim is generated by the tort claim. On the...
Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Stamford College ( Malacca) Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 1712 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling highlights the need for contracts to contain a precise and clearly framed arbitration clause. Where an arbitration agreement is unclear or clumsily drafted, it may not be enforceable. In this matter, the clause merely offered the parties a choice to settle disputes either by arbitration or in the courts. The court determined that, because there was no compulsory obligation to refer disputes to arbitration, the parties had not given an unequivocal agreement to have their disputes determined by arbitration. The decision further clarifies when a court should employ the ‘prima facie’ approach as opposed to the ‘just and convenient’ approach in deciding whether to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration......
In the UK, AI-related data breaches raise liability questions: who bears responsibility when an AI-enabled tool triggers a breach? Is it the software creator, the deploying organisation, or a third-party data processor? As AI advances, grasping the legal and regulatory regimes governing AI-driven breaches is essential to meeting these issues and safeguarding individuals’ rights. This article considers these matters from the perspective of, assessing the current legal landscape, real-world examples of AI-associated breaches, and practical measures to reduce liability. Clarifying accountability in AI is therefore a pressing concern in real-world settings. What is AI and how is it defined under UK law? Artificial Intelligence ( AI) describes computer systems that emulate human cognition, learning from data and refining performance over time. It spans simple rule-based decision tools through to sophisticated systems capable of independently diagnosing medical conditions or operating vehicles. Because AI depends on data,...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International Arbitration Investment treaty 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 Jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings against third parties to an arbitration agreement The ruling in Renaissance Securities Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises [2024] EWHC 1827 ( Comm) concerns an application by Renaissance Securities ( Cyprus) Ltd ( Renaissance) to modify an anti-suit injunction ( ASI) issued by the English court in November 2023. That ASI restrained the six defendants in the underlying dispute from continuing proceedings against Renaissance in the Russian courts, or before any other court or tribunal, contrary to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the London Court of...
Aroma Franchise Company, Inc v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. 2024 ONCA 839 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise in their arbitration clause, the Model Law’s objective yardstick governs both arbitrators’ disclosure duties and their potential disqualification in international arbitrations seated in Ontario. In the absence of express agreement to the contrary, that objective benchmark is the applicable test. As the Model Law is embedded in the international commercial arbitration statutes of every other Canadian province, and incorporated into the provisions of the Code of civil procedure of Québec, the judgment carries significance across Canada and will be relevant nationwide. The Court further determined that the application judge erred in relying on pre‑appointment communications between the parties to find a reasonable apprehension of bias, given those exchanges were never put before the...
Renaissance Securities ( Cyprus) Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises and others [2024] EWHC 2843 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This case reaffirms the settled English law principles of interpretation, particularly in relation to arbitration clauses. The proper approach is to construe the arbitration clause in its entirety and by reference to the principal agreement that contains it, to determine, objectively, the meaning it would convey to a reasonable person equipped with the relevant background known to the parties when the bargain was struck, while disregarding prior negotiations and any statements of subjective intention. The ruling also offers guidance on how an arbitration clause and an ASI should be read in relation to third parties. In the absence of clear wording that a jurisdiction clause reaches claims against non-parties, the default position, when construing a...
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
