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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Importance of diversity in international arbitration The international arbitration community broadly agrees on the key advantages of embracing diversity. Greater diversity within international arbitration strengthens the perceived legitimacy of the process. As highlighted by scholars Kabir Dugal and Amanda Lee in the Columbia Law International Arbitration Review, concerns about fairness and bias intensify when the pool of Investor-state dispute settlement ( ISDS) arbitrators lacks diversity and inclusivity. Bringing together arbitrators and counsel with varied backgrounds ensures that a wider range of perspectives and experiences informs deliberations. This, in turn, can reinforce both the credibility and legitimacy of proceedings and support the enforceability of awards. Diversity also advances cultural awareness and sensitivity in the management of cross-border disputes. Dugal and Lee contend that broader representation during tribunal deliberations can lead to more robust awards, as a multiplicity of viewpoints can better enable the tribunal to grasp the...
On 6 November 2024, the court held that the heirs could not overturn the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision, according to a statement issued by a Malaysian minister. The appeals court also found in favour of Malaysia, concluding that the US$15bn award was invalid and therefore of no effect under French law. In a statement on 7 November 2024, Minister Azalina Othman Said said the Court of Cassation ( France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters) confirmed that the original US$15bn award to the heirs was a ‘sham’. The Supreme Court agreed with the Paris Court of Appeal that Gonzalo Stampa — the Spanish lawyer and arbitrator who first ordered Malaysia to pay the heirs US$15bn in a territorial dispute — wrongly decided he had jurisdiction to hear their claims and to make such orders. The higher court added that the governing contract...
Tagidor Premium Investments SA & Others v GB Foods SA and GB Foods Africa Holding Company SL [ RG 22/14437] Cour d'appel de Paris What are the practical implications of this case? To annul an arbitral award for breach of French international public policy arising from alleged corruption and money laundering, the breach must be established by a body of grave, precise and corroborative evidence. Accordingly, pointing only to a speculative possibility that French public policy could be infringed, or to merely conjectural indications of corrupt conduct, will not meet the threshold. In addition, where a party maintains that the principle of equality of arms—protected as part of the right to a fair trial—was not upheld by the tribunal, the courts will not second-guess the tribunal’s reasoning, save where that reasoning leaves one party in a materially inferior position compared with the other side. Put...
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 Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales ICSID Convention and waiver of immunity On 22 October 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down a significant ruling on enforcing ICSID arbitral awards, arising from the joined appeals of Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À. R. L. v Kingdom of Spain and Border Timbers Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe [2024] EWCA Civ 1257. The Court of Appeal confirmed that foreign states may not invoke state immunity under section 1(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 ( SIA 1978) to overturn the registration of ICSID awards. This landmark outcome aligns the position under...
Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership v Shandong Group and another [2024] SGHCR 7 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision highlights the need for meticulous and prompt adherence to ‘unless’ orders issued by the court. Where such an order concerns document production, practitioners must ensure complete compliance with the production directives, and provide clear, detailed accounts for any materials no longer within the client’s possession and control ( P& C). What will qualify as a sufficient account will invariably depend on the facts of the particular matter. If the court concludes that no adequate explanation has been given for how a party purportedly lost P& C over specified documents, it may determine that the ‘unless’ order has been breached and impose adverse consequences. In addition, the decision shows that the principle of minimal curial intervention does not bar the striking out of an...
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and another v Spain; Border Timbers Ltd and another v Zimbabwe [2024] EWCA Civ 1257 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a sovereign cannot block the registration of an ICSID award in the English courts by invoking state immunity under the SIA. By reversing Mr Justice Dias’s first-instance ruling in Border Timbers v Zimbabwe, the Court has realigned English law with approaches taken across numerous common law and civil law systems. The court expressly observed that this outcome is beneficial, since, as a general principle, international treaties ought to be construed consistently by the courts of all contracting states. Most significantly, the decision is a boost for award creditors seeking to enforce ICSID awards. The judgment underscores the English courts’ pro-enforcement orientation towards investor–state decisions. It therefore provides reassurance to parties...
In this piece, we explore the AI Convention and outline its key provisions. We delve into the Convention’s compliance and oversight framework, together with the consequences and remedies for non‑compliance, in detail. Finally, we assess what the AI Convention signifies for global AI regulation and offer practical pointers to help businesses in this space get compliance‑ready. Existing regulation Over the past year or so, governments worldwide have weighed up whether, and how, to regulate AI at home: US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on AI in October 2023; the UK government pledged in July to introduce legislation targeting the most powerful AI models; and the EU’s comprehensive AI Act took effect on 1 August 2024. China has enacted its own AI laws too. In addition, several US states, such as California, are actively moving to pass state‑level AI safety laws. There have also been steps on AI...
LP International Company Limited v Vietnam International Arbitration Centre 06/2024/ KDTM- PT What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores how vital it is to pinpoint the competent court and to classify the dispute correctly. Court jurisdiction LP Company initially misfiled proceedings against the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre ( VIAC) in the Dong Da District People’s Court. As the matter related to commercial arbitration, jurisdiction belonged to a provincial-level People’s Court under the 2010 Law on Commercial Arbitration ( Article 7.3) and the 2015 Civil Procedure Code ( Articles 31.2 and 37.1.b). The mistake led to the appellate court setting aside the first-instance judgment, slowing resolution and squandering time and resources. Practitioners should remember that provincial-level People’s Courts are the proper forum for disputes touching on commercial arbitration in Vietnam. Nature of the dispute Here, LP Company demanded from VIAC more than VND 1.3bn in...
Kings Chariot v Tarun Wadhwa ARB. P. 421/2024 The parties’ contract included an arbitration clause providing that any dispute between them would be referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be chosen by mutual consent. Another clause contained in an annexure to the contract declared that all disputes were subject to Delhi jurisdiction only. Disputes arose between the parties, after which the Petitioner triggered arbitration and moved the DHC under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( A& C Act), seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent contended that the DHC lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action lay in Madhya Pradesh, where the agreement was executed and where the respondent maintained its place of business. The DHC declined to entertain the matter and refused to exercise jurisdiction, concluding that the contract’s jurisdiction clause was merely a general...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales 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 in England & Wales Five lessons from UK justices’ ruling on arbitral jurisdiction On 18 September 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment, unanimously affirming the grant of an anti-suit injunction to restrain Russian court proceedings commenced in breach of an agreement requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Paris. See: Five takeaways from UK justices’ arbitration jurisdiction ruling. Multi-forum claim dismissed for res judicata The Commercial Court, in Tumpuan Megah Development v ING Bank and OW Bunker Far East, dismissed Tumpuan Megah Development’s proceedings against OW Bunker Far East and ING Bank. The court held the...
Background It is worth noting that, over a relatively brief span, the question of arbitration’s legitimacy in Kazakhstan has encountered serious and repeated headwinds. The earliest arbitration agreements involving the state emerged as the country formally declared independence in 1991. In the late 1990s, amid a worsening economy, there was a continual and escalating risk of international arbitration tied to major investment contracts concluded by Kazakhstan and some of its enterprises. This led certain governmental and law enforcement bodies — including the Government, the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice — to explore methods to avoid enforcing arbitral rulings within the country altogether. Arbitration’s regulation in Kazakhstan has persistently been a flashpoint between the State and the commercial legal community. This strain is rooted in the State’s wish to attract investment while, at the same time, being tempted to preserve...
Responding to a certified query from a federal court in Lake Charles, the Louisiana Supreme Court held on 25 October 2024 that a domestic insurer cannot invoke equitable estoppel to force arbitration under a foreign insurer’s policy. The issue arose from a dispute between a Louisiana municipality and a syndicate of its insurers over cover for publicly owned property damaged by two Category 4 hurricanes in 2020. Because state law prohibits arbitration clauses in insurance policies issued in Louisiana, a different ruling would, the court warned, encourage domestic insurers to misuse a doctrine of last resort—equitable estoppel—by ceaselessly relying on foreign insurers’ policies to compel arbitration. The doctrine permits a non-party to an arbitration agreement to enforce it where the dispute is tied to conduct governed by, or inextricably linked with, the contract. According to the opinion authored by Justice Pro Tempore...
Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd v ING Bank NV and another [2024] EWHC 2350 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers clear guidance for arbitration practitioners on how earlier awards can bar later claims in complex disputes spanning multiple fora. Even where concurrent overseas proceedings are on foot, an unchallenged arbitral award will still shut out a subsequent claim advancing contentions that conflict with it—for instance, asserting the tribunal lacked jurisdiction yet the arbitration was pursued. Accordingly, if a party loses in arbitration and aims to avoid issue estoppel arising from an adverse award, it must act promptly and bring a challenge under sections 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). Simply pointing to a potential challenge under AA 1996, section 103 at the enforcement stage is unlikely to be sufficient. The judgment also...
HIDROELECTRICA SANTA RITA S. A., a Guatemalan company, Petitioner- Appellee, versus CORPORACION AIC, SA, D. C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23807- RNS What are the practical implications of this case? In an earlier ruling in this matter, the Eleventh Circuit set aside its own prior authority to align with other Circuits, expressly determining that the domestic law articulated in Chapter 1 of the FAA operates as a gap‑filler in this context and supplies the vacatur grounds for an international arbitration award otherwise regulated by Chapter 2. One such Chapter 1 ground permits vacatur where arbitrators act beyond their authority and exceed their powers. This judgment, which endorses the District Court’s subsequent conclusion that the tribunal did not exceed its remit, reaffirms the steep threshold that must be met before a court will set aside an award on that ground, and offers concrete...
The protocol The protocol is a welcome and useful contribution; although it cannot dictate solutions for every contentious element of arranging a site visit, it does provide a consistent, pragmatic framework for a host of common questions. It looks set to spare parties from recreating the wheel on broad, generic matters, and may free them to concentrate on the case‑specific points that sit outside the protocol’s scope. Prepared by a working group of the IBA Arbitration Committee, the protocol is attentive to construction and engineering disputes yet is not confined to those fields, being proposed for deployment in wider commercial cases where a site visit could be contemplated. While site visits are far from redundant, the authors’ experience is that they are typically used less often in construction disputes than they once were. Any downward trend may stem from several influences, among them the growing...
Bank A and Bank B [2024] HKCFI 2529 What are the practical implications of this case? The Hong Kong Court indicated that, to honour the parties’ bargain, overseas litigation started in contravention of an arbitration clause will usually be halted by an injunction, save where compelling reasons are established to the opposite effect. It further emphasised that, when determining the applications for injunctive relief, it did not assess the substance of the dispute; its focus was confined to whether a binding arbitration agreement existed between the parties encompassing the disputes at issue. The court’s enquiry was therefore limited to the existence and scope of the arbitration clause, not the rights and wrongs of the claim. This approach is consistent with the Hong Kong courts’ longstanding pro‑arbitration stance in earlier authorities, thereby strengthening Hong Kong’s reputation as a leading seat for...
Arbitrators’ disclosure duties in focus—insights from the Aiteo arbitration awards challenge ( Aiteo v Shell & 8 Others) Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd Claimant and (1) Shell Western Supply and Trading Ltd; (2) Africa Finance Corporation; (3) Ecobank Nigeria Ltd; (4) Fidelity Bank Plc; (5) First bank of Nigeria Ltd; (6) Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd; (7) Sterling Bank Ltd; (8) Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; (9) Zenith Bank Plc [2024] EWHC 1993 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment carries considerable weight for practitioners, arbitrators, parties and arbitral institutions, especially in relation to challenges to awards under AA 1996, s 68. It builds on the developing jurisprudence, including Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, concerning arbitrators’ duties of disclosure. The judge underscored the need for openness, noting that failures to disclose, or...
Britain’s Court of Appeal found that states which signed the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States clearly undertook to honour awards issued by the Washington, DC-based body created under that treaty, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Justice Stephen Phillips wrote that, by force of article 54, contracting states have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and therefore cannot resist the registration of ICSID awards by claiming state immunity. He also remarked elsewhere that Spain’s submission on appeal urged the court to depart from the ordinary meaning of the Convention’s text and to defeat, rather than give effect to, its object and purpose. In the same judgment, the court rejected Zimbabwe’s state immunity defence in a parallel appeal heard at the same time, where the African state sought to overturn an order...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International Arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments The Arbitration Blog Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over Toronto-seated arbitration The High Court, in Investcom Global Ltd v PLC Investments Ltd [2024] EWHC 2505 ( Comm), refused to extend interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions aimed at restraining Liberian civil proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration clause. This followed the ICC’s determination in the ongoing arbitration that Toronto, Canada is the seat, and the claimant lacked a good arguable case that the tribunal would overturn that finding in favour of London. As a result, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction over the defendants under CPR 62.5(1)(c) or (2A), each requiring that the seat ‘is or will be’ in...
Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company ( Power Machines- ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) and another matter [2024] SGHC 244 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision arose from an attempt to set aside specific findings within an arbitral award on the basis that they breached the principles of natural justice. Those principles require that each side in a dispute is given a fair chance to advance its case and to answer the assertions made against it. In this matter, the court recognised that the arbitration had indeed fallen foul of those safeguards. Nevertheless, the court chose not to invalidate the award as a whole. Instead, it determined that the appropriate course was to remit the affected issues to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The outcome is noteworthy, as it reflects the court’s inclination to permit the original Tribunal to cure the...
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
