Legal News

Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP and others [2026] EWCA Civ 25 What are the practical implications of this case? For costs practitioners, this judgment offers vital direction on the interplay between detailed assessment and third-party costs applications. First, it confirms there is no legal hierarchy between these processes—contrary to arguments that a judgment creditor enjoys a presumptive right to chase third parties straightaway. The ruling empowers costs judges and Commercial Court judges to stay third-party applications where the sum ultimately payable is genuinely uncertain, particularly where a substantial payment on account has been made and the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis with its proportionality filter. Second, and more significantly, the Court of Appeal issued a stark warning against disproportionate conduct of detailed assessments. The court was dismayed by the prospect of a 50-day assessment hearing...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales 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 Arbitration in England & Wales Draft your dispute clause and notice of arbitration with care In Ropa v Kharis Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 259 ( Comm), the Commercial Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to draft dispute resolution clauses, notices of arbitration and claim forms with care. The court confirmed that all disputes were to be resolved by arbitration and that there was no obligation to pursue mediation as a condition precedent to starting arbitration. However, the judge noted that the proceedings became necessary due to poor drafting of the dispute resolution clause and the notice to arbitrate, and the costs of the claim were likely...

LT v RV [2026] HKCFI 1280 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling resonates well beyond the immediate dispute. Do not presume an arbitration settlement will always have award status for every purpose. To secure award effect, ask the tribunal to issue an award on agreed terms under Article 30 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as given effect by section 66(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance ( Cap. 609), and provide draft operative wording that squarely disposes of claims, counterclaims, releases and costs. A bare termination order can leave too much outside the tribunal’s dispositive ruling. The tribunal becoming functus is not enough on its own. Be deliberate about the forum for any later dispute over the settlement. Here, the award route failed, but the Settlement Agreement’s exclusive Hong Kong court clause let LT seek declaratory relief in court. That drafting choice...

What was the background to the dispute? The arbitration stems from an actio ut singuli brought by Mr [ J], a minority investor in Petrobras, against the União, seeking compensation for harm allegedly sustained by Petrobras after the appointment of board members reportedly linked to the Brazilian ‘ Lava Jato’ corruption affair. Petrobras is a Brazilian mixed-economy entity engaged in the production, exploration, refining and sale of oil and gas. Its by-laws include an arbitration clause. On that footing, MUDES launched CAM arbitration proceedings in March 2017, and Mr [ J] filed separate CAM proceedings in October 2017, both directed at the União. The União contested the clause’s applicability, denied being bound to arbitrate, and challenged the objective arbitrability of the case, invoking its public-law prerogatives. The two proceedings were consolidated in April 2018. On 15 January 2020, the arbitral tribunal issued an interim award...

Supreme Court of the Netherlands decision In a concise, three-page ruling dated 6 March 2026, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands found no grounds to disturb the Hague Court of Appeal’s late-2024 decision, which allows Devas Multimedia America Inc, a subsidiary of awardee Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd, to enforce the award against Antrix Corp Ltd. Shareholders of Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd notified the Ninth Circuit of this outcome on 6 March 2026, just days before oral argument in a parallel enforcement matter scheduled for 10 March 2026 in San Francisco. The case has returned to the Ninth Circuit after the US Supreme Court revived it in 2025. Citing a translated copy of the judgment attached to their letter, the Devas shareholders told the court that the Dutch Supreme Court had upheld the Hague Court of Appeal in full, concluding that Antrix’s...

England & Wales—clarifying the Boundaries of State Attribution ( Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates, LP) Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates, LP [2026] EWHC 368 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of the case? Foxton LJ construed the Treaty by applying the method in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 ( VCLT). Under Article 31, interpretation must have regard to any relevant rules of international law governing relations between the parties. The parties accepted that this covered the principles of international law set out in the draft articles on Responsibility of States for Intentionally Wrongful Acts and the International Law Commission’s accompanying commentary (the ‘ ILC Articles’ and ‘ ILC Commentary’). A key issue was whether the NPS qualified as an organ of the Korean State. If it did, Article 4 of the ILC Articles would attribute all of its conduct to the...

Summary of the case Factual and procedural background This dispute stems from an agreement for the sale and purchase of surface treatment services concluded between a surface treatment provider (the ' Claimant') and a manufacturer of lifting and handling equipment (the ' Respondent'), under which the Claimant performed surface treatment services for metal profiles. After the Respondent terminated the contract, the Claimant commenced proceedings before the Paris Commercial Court, seeking damages for contractual breaches and the abrupt termination of their commercial relationship. The Respondent, inter alia, challenged jurisdiction, contending the Commercial Court lacked competence because the contract contained an arbitration agreement. On 4 July 2022, the Paris Commercial Court rejected the Respondent’s jurisdictional plea and dismissed the Claimant’s claims on the merits. The Claimant appealed the judgment to the Paris Court of Appeal. The parties’ arguments A central issue on appeal was whether the...

Ropa v Kharis Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 259 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of the case? The claimant issued a Notice to Arbitrate on 18 February 2025. The defendant nevertheless held up the arbitration for twelve months by contesting the Notice’s validity, the construction of the dispute resolution clause, and the validity of the claim form. Both sides incurred notable expense addressing these preliminary points. Although dispute resolution provisions are rarely centre-stage when contracting, dedicating time and cost to eliminate scope for challenges to their application can prove a sound investment. What was the background? The parties’ agreement contained three dispute resolution provisions: 54. The members submit to the jurisdiction of the court of the Country of England for the enforcement of this Agreement and for any arbitration award or decision arising from this Agreement. 55. In the event a dispute arises out of or in...

Share your insights here The German Federal Ministry of Justice ( Bundesjustizministerium) has unveiled a draft bill to update the arbitration provisions in the German Civil Procedure Code ( ZPO). This represents the first thorough revision since 1998, after the 2024 effort failed when the then administration ended prematurely. Drawing on the 2024 public consultation, the proposal responds to central criticisms and primarily seeks to boost Germany’s appeal as a seat of arbitration. The key developments and their practical significance are set out below. Form of the arbitration agreement According to the revised Section 1031(1) ZPO, an arbitration agreement will be valid if it is made or recorded in writing, or via any medium that permits later access to the information. The rule is further modernised by removing outdated references, including to “telegrams”, and adopting a...

G and G v CNG and SIL [2026] HKCFI 902 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision sends a strong signal that, for Hong Kong-seated arbitrations, the Article 34 time bars are applied with rigour. Chan J confirmed that section 81 AO (which gives effect to Article 34 of the Model Law) is the exclusive mechanism to set aside an award made in a Hong Kong seat, and that the three-month window is inflexible. The judge also declined to recognise any fraud or bribery exception, observing that any remedy for perceived unfairness lies with the legislature. Parties therefore cannot sidestep section 81 AO through inventive pleadings. Examining the essence of the 25187 Arbitration claims (seeking declarations that awards were tainted, orders to set them aside, and measures to undo enforcement), Her Ladyship treated them as...

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 The Commercial Court addressed an application to determine a preliminary point of law under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 arising from an ongoing investor arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In The Republic of India v CC Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd [2026] EWHC 156 ( Comm), India applied under section 45 in relation to the Tribunal’s procedural directions on the identity of the parties’ legal representatives in an English-seated investor–state arbitration. That arbitration involves India as respondent and three Mauritian companies as claimants pursuant to the 1998 bilateral investment treaty between India and the...

Lanesborough 2000 LLC v Nextres LLC , No. 24-2211 (2d Cir. 2026) What are the practical implications of the case? In Lanesborough 2000, the Second Circuit ruled that a purported waiver of the ‘right to appeal’ cannot foreclose appellate scrutiny where its wording admits more than one plausible reading. The panel deemed the provision ambiguous because it was uncertain whether it swept in every possible appeal, including a district court’s post-award orders, or was confined to challenges to the arbitral award itself. The decision underscores that courts will parse waiver clauses with care, and that uncertainty will generally favour permitting an appeal. The court also cautioned that even text that appears plain may still fail where the waiver is excessively expansive or relies on catch-all phrasing. By way of illustration, language declaring that an arbitrator’s decision ‘shall not be subject to any type of review or...

Recent shifts have influenced how public policy and reciprocity are construed, and how arbitral neutrality is evaluated. This synopsis briefly surveys the legal architecture and principal patterns visible in Russian enforcement practice since 2022. Legal framework for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and judgements Russia is a Party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), which requires contracting states to acknowledge and execute arbitral awards issued or rendered in other contracting territories. Until 2022, Russian courts were largely seen as supportive of arbitration, though they occasionally at times applied an expansive view of public policy when declining recognition and enforcement. In addition, Russian law contains distinct specific rules addressing the enforcement of foreign court judgments. Under Article 241(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code ( APC), decisions of foreign courts in disputes arising from...

What are the practical implications of this case? Section 110 of the German Code of Civil Procedure ( ZPO) obliges claimants domiciled outside the EU/ EEA, upon request, to furnish security for the respondent’s litigation costs. This rule also applies by analogy in proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and serves to shield respondents from the risk that a later costs award cannot be executed abroad. The FCJ has now clarified that where a treaty-based exemption is available (such as Article 17 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure) the assessment is purely formal. Under Section 110(2) No. 1 ZPO, the sole question is whether Germany remains internationally obliged to waive security for costs. Sanctions, political frictions, reciprocity concerns or expected enforcement hurdles overseas do not change that position. So long as the treaty is formally in force, the...

Gluck v Endzweig and another [2026] EWCA Civ 145 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is of immediate relevance to practitioners who draft or advise on arbitration clauses, especially where the nominated forum lies beyond the mainstream of institutional commercial arbitration. A Beth Din, a Sharia panel, or an analogous body may assume an ongoing pastoral or faith-based mandate to revisit its decisions—an assumption that directly clashes with the AA 1996 enforcement architecture. Parties seeking to refer disputes to such forums while still preserving the capacity to enforce any award must recognise that these aims are not invariably compatible. Any contractual power to correct or supplement should be time-limited: AA 1996, s 57(4) offers a sound template, allowing correction within twenty-eight days of the award date, or within any longer period the parties may agree. The court’s method of...

What are the practical implications of the case? In The Republic of India v CC Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd and others, the Commercial Court ruled on an application by the Republic of India under AA 1996, s 45. For practitioners, the significance lies in its examination (within an s 45 application) of how far a court may intervene in an ongoing investor-state arbitration. Against a backdrop the judgment called ‘complex and highly contentious’, the Commercial Court addressed whether it was constrained by the Tribunal’s procedural orders when determining who may consent to bringing an application under AA 1996, s 45. The Court held it was not constrained by those orders because, unlike the Tribunal—which had approached the question by reference to international law and the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as the arbitration’s substantive law—the English court was required to apply English law and English public...

Gonzalo SC v Estado Soberano de Malasia STS 4353/2025 - ECLI: ES: TS:2025:4353 What are the practical implications of the case? This ruling carries significant practical consequences for arbitrators and arbitration practitioners. It cautions that an arbitral mandate is not a shield from accountability. The Supreme Court clarifies that arbitral autonomy ends where court authority begins in areas allocated by law, such as appointing or removing arbitrators. It also reiterates that arbitration does not operate in a legal void: a tribunal’s authority is tethered to the legal order of the seat, whose courts oversee the continuing validity of an arbitrator’s mandate. Even if a judicial ruling affecting that mandate seems wrong or open to debate, an arbitrator cannot simply set it aside. In this dispute, the Sole Arbitrator maintained that he was duty-bound to continue once appointed and after issuing a...

Jagdeep Chowgule v Sheela Chowgule and others 2026 INSC 92; 2026 SCC On Line SC 124 What are the practical implications of the case? This ruling has tangible consequences for arbitration users and counsel in India. It articulates a single, consistent position on forum competence and removes earlier ambiguity. Every request to prolong an arbitral tribunal’s mandate—as well as any plea to replace an arbitrator—must be filed only before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (ordinarily the Commercial Court) or a High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, in line with section 2(1)(e) of the Act, regardless of how the tribunal came to be formed. The Court has also settled a long-standing divergence among High Courts. Previously, practitioners were unsure whether such extension motions should track the route of appointment under section 42 of the Act; some benches held that if a High Court had...

In a preliminary judgment, Judge Robert Bright concluded that the Russian Federation’s challenges offered no realistic prospect of toppling a £50bn award secured by the investors in 2014. The investors comprised three oil companies: Hulley Enterprises Ltd, Veteran Petroleum Ltd and Yukos Universal Ltd. The High Court ratified the largest sum ever awarded by the English courts, firmly throwing out Russia’s appeals. Once interest was applied, the original £50bn rose to £66bn, a figure the court left intact. Bright J determined that numerous Russian points had already been rejected by lower tribunals and could not be recycled on appeal, as they had been fully ventilated before. Russia had maintained that the investors procured the award through bribery and fraud. Bright J further dismissed Russia’s contention that the £66bn should be deemed unenforceable on public policy grounds. Russia contended that the award arose in part from acts of...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Institutional arbitration International arbitration Other ADR and arbitration related news Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Supreme Court holds that article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention constitutes a clear waiver of adjudicative state immunity under section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the appeals in The Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À. R. L. and another; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd and another [2026] UKSC 9. The court concluded that, by acceding to article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, Spain and Zimbabwe accepted the jurisdiction of the English courts for the purposes of section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978, and thus could not invoke state immunity to oppose the...