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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ......
Neal v Nadir [2024] DIFIC A 001 What are the practical implications of this case? The ramifications of Neal v Nadir are significant for those practising in international arbitration and commercial law. By upholding the enforceability of foreign interim arbitral awards, the DIFC Court of Appeal reinforces legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in cross-border proceedings. The ruling gives confidence to international businesses that interim measures ordered in overseas arbitrations will be recognised and enforced in the DIFC, further enhancing the DIFC’s appeal as a hub for international dispute resolution. For arbitration practitioners, the decision highlights the strategic importance of seeking interim relief in jurisdictions that are supportive of arbitration. The court clarified that recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, regardless of where it was made, may only be refused on the grounds set out in the relevant Article, confirming the strength of the...
Details of the 27 May ruling emerged in legal papers Italy lodged on 30 May 2024 in the DC federal court, where enforcement proceedings filed by the firm, CEF Energia BV, to enforce the award have remained on hold for nearly four years while Italy’s challenge made its way through the Swedish judiciary. Italy informed the DC Court that the Svea Court of Appeal concluded in its decision that the award is void because the arbitration was conducted under an arbitration clause in the Energy Charter Treaty that conflicts with EU law......
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitration Bill—wash-up period—fallen UK Parliament has stated the Arbitration Bill will not proceed further following the prorogation of Parliament on 24 May 2024. As it did not enter the wash-up period, the Bill now falls. Accordingly, the next government, should it wish to take the Bill forward, will have to reintroduce it and begin the legislative process afresh. See: LNB News 29/05/2024 32......
On 23 May 2024, in a filing, Brower J informed the circuit judges that, contrary to the Russian Federation’s assertions in its appeal of the District Court arbitration enforcement victory, he has no disqualifying conflict of interest, and that the dispute now before the Circuit Court bears no relation to other matters involving the Russian Federation over which he has previously presided... In his 23 May response to the Kremlin, he contends that his experience of arbitrations concerning the Russian Federation does not bar him from offering a systemic perspective, likening the position to saying a judge’s legal conclusions in one case are tainted simply because he is also overseeing another case featuring the same litigant... The Russian Federation seeks to prevent Brower J from taking part in a friend-of-the-court brief he submitted with two other international law experts, in which the trio urges the...
Key takeaways From 29 January 2024, the Arrangement comes into force in Hong Kong and Mainland China. It will streamline the cross-border recognition and enforcement of the majority of civil and commercial judgments across both legal systems and jurisdictions. The Arrangement marks a material enhancement to the existing regime, giving parties engaged in Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese proceedings heightened confidence that, where criteria are met, eligible judgments will be recognised and enforced. It also allows for the recognition of non-monetary judgments, empowering judgment creditors to seek enforcement of injunctions and orders for specific performance. In addition, the Arrangement’s simplified jurisdictional criteria will materially ease enforcement by Hong Kong judgment creditors against assets within Mainland China, and by Mainland Chinese judgment creditors against assets within Hong...
On 22 May 2024, the Kingdom of Spain sent a letter to the appellate body, replying to a 20 May 2024 submission to the court from Dutch subsidiaries of US-based Next Era Energy Inc and Luxembourg-based 9REN Holding SARL. Those companies seek to enforce arbitral awards against Spain with a combined value of approximately €359.3m (roughly US$386m). Spain, meanwhile, asks the DC Circuit to deny enforcement, contending that the arbitration clause in the multilateral Energy Charter Treaty ( ECT) does not apply to intra- European Union disputes between EU Member States and European investors. Spain’s letter notes: ‘ Spain and the EU have legally committed themselves to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.’ It adds: ‘ As the European Commission has observed, the Energy Charter Treaty (a 1990s agreement to develop fossil-fuel resources in the former Soviet bloc) is no longer compatible with the EU’s...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court—confidentiality of judgments—arbitration claims In Ganz v Petronz FZE [2024] EWHC 1011 ( Comm), the court provides a strong illustration of the delicate balance required when considering whether to publish a judgment arising from an arbitration claim, and indicates how the court may assess factors supporting transparency against the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of the original arbitration and its subject matter. In this instance, although there were credible submissions resisting publication, the powerful and legitimate public interest in the operation and practice of arbitration ultimately outweighed them. See News Analysis: Confidentiality of judgments on arbitration claims ( Ganz v Petronz & another), authored by Oliver Browne,...
IC Power Ltd, et al v Republic of Peru, No ARB/19/19, ICSID On 17 May 2024, the ICSID tribunal issued its rectification decision. It had been sent to the parties on 3 May 2024 by the tribunal, consisting of Professor Luca G Radicati di Brozolo as president, David R Haigh KC, appointed by the claimants, and Eduardo Siqueiros T, appointed by Peru. Power plants In 2015, IC Power Ltd and its parent, Kenon Holdings Ltd, both Singaporean entities, obtained indirect controlling stakes in three Peruvian companies that owned and ran five electricity generation plants in Peru. On 27 June 2019, ICSID registered their request for arbitration against Peru under the Peru– Singapore free trade agreement. The claimants sought US$195.3m in damages from Peru, alleging harm to their energy investments arising from two new resolutions regulating the electricity generation industry in June 2016. They contended that...
On 17 May 2024, the Madrid Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance judgment convicting Stampa in criminal proceedings pursued by Spain’s Public Prosecutor and Malaysia, as the south-east Asian nation announced over the weekend. The order bars him from serving as an arbitrator for twelve months. It also hands down a six-month custodial term; however, due to a quirk of Spanish law for sentences below two years, he is not expected to spend time behind bars. The decision remains open to challenge before Spain’s Supreme Court. Stampa — founding partner of Madrid arbitration boutique Stampa Abogados — declined to comment on 20 May 2024. The case arose from his choice to continue chairing as sole arbitrator in the dispute involving the Sulu claimants even after Spanish courts set aside his appointment in 2021 owing to a...
By denying certiorari, the justices have ultimately made final and binding the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling from last year, which dismissed Mc Innis Electric Co’s contention that a judge, rather than an arbitrator, should decide whether its project-related claims are captured by an arbitration provision. Mc Innis, which lodged its certiorari request last month, had earlier entered into a subcontract on the vast scheme with the prime contractor, Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, and their agreement required any disputes to be resolved through arbitration under the American Arbitration Association’s Construction Industry Arbitration Rules. A conflict erupted in May 2020 when Brasfield & Gorrie ended the subcontract for an alleged breach. After that company moved to formally commence arbitration, Mc Innis brought this action, asserting the quarrel embraced matters outside the arbitration clause’s reach, including being compelled to carry on works despite the...
With immediate effect, JAMS says new rules tackle the surge in AI use and smart contracts, which function as automated market-makers on crypto exchanges to set investor payouts, according to JAMS' announcement. In a statement, CEO Chris Poole said the rules aim to address the steep growth of artificial intelligence systems and the meeting point between AI technology and dispute resolution. Poole added that JAMS remains determined to lead on fast-changing technology and to offer resilient, progressive solutions for the lawyers and parties it serves and supports alike......
In a six-page opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and issued less than a month after oral argument in Smith v Spizzirri, the Supreme Court relied on the text of federal arbitration law to hold that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that federal courts have discretion to dismiss once arbitration is compelled, a course that enables the losing party to appeal. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act states that when a case is referred to arbitration, a trial court 'shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had'. The justices rejected the respondents’ position, advanced by the on-demand delivery company Intelli Quick, that 'stay' simply requires the court to halt parallel litigation, which it could achieve by dismissing the case. There are two significant problems with that...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Investment treaty arbitration International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration AI in arbitration Sector-and industry-specific arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales Supreme Court: non-contractual performance not a failure to exercise reasonable endeavours ( RTI Ltd ( Respondent) v MUR Shipping BV ( Appellant)) The Supreme Court in RTI Ltd ( Respondent) v MUR Shipping BV ( Appellant) [2024] UKSC 18 allowed the appeal unanimously, concluding that the Appellant’s refusal of the Respondent’s proposal to perform on a non-contractual basis did not amount to a failure to use reasonable endeavours. Consequently, the Court confirmed that the reasonable endeavours proviso did not preclude the Appellant from invoking the force majeure clause. Kaity Crowe, Pupil at The 36 Group, and Paul Schwartfeger, Barrister at The 36 Group, provide commentary on the decision’s impact and its wider...
Confidentiality of judgments on arbitration claims ( Ganz v Petronz & another) Ganz v Petronz FZE and another [2024] EWHC 1011 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners and arbitration users should note that the English courts do far more than pay token homage to open justice. Even where proceedings stem from a confidential mechanism such as an LCIA arbitration, the default position is that court judgments about that process will be available to the public. When deciding whether to issue a public judgment, the courts typically favour publication unless truly compelling grounds justify secrecy. In practice, this means aspects of a dispute—allegations and elements of the factual backdrop—may enter the public domain, a risk that warrants particular caution when advancing challenges under sections 67 and/or 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). What was the...
By 560 votes to 43, with 27 abstentions, the European Parliament backed a recommendation that the EU pull out of the increasingly contested treaty. This came after a late‑2022 attempt to modernise the ageing, post‑ Soviet‑era pact fell short. For years, European critics have argued the ECT shields fossil fuels over green energy initiatives by letting investors launch arbitration claims against states that introduce policies affecting their profits, including sudden bans on particular energy sources. The outcry intensified when Sweden’s Vattenfall brought an investor‑state case against Germany in 2012 over its nuclear phase‑out, and when UK‑based Rockhopper Exploration plc sued Italy after the country prohibited oil and gas projects off its coastline. Vattenfall’s claim was settled in 2021 for some US$1.5bn, while a year later Rockhopper secured a 190 m euro ( US$203.2m) arbitral award against Italy......
For instance, disagreements about purchase price adjustments are commonly sent to an independent accountant to settle the parties’ differences concerning accounting methods and computations. How that process is characterised—as arbitration or as an expert determination—has several important consequences. A principal distinction is that arbitrators typically possess full authority to rule on all legal and factual matters required to resolve a dispute, including interpreting the purchase agreement, whereas experts are confined to resolving discrete factual issues within their expertise and to interpreting the relevant contract only so far as necessary to decide those factual points. A further divergence concerns the standard of review applicable to efforts to challenge decisions by arbitrators as opposed to experts. Consequently, parties often find themselves litigating, as an initial question, whether the purchase agreement’s dispute procedure constitutes an expert determination or an arbitration. That conclusion dictates whether...
This is a near-term concern flagged by several arbitration specialists. Deepfakes— AI-made videos that fabricate persuasive audio and visual deceptions—are not easily spotted by an untrained observer. They can be so lifelike that a person’s accent, speech patterns and mannerisms are copied with quite uncanny accuracy. And, experts note, the expense of producing them is lower than many would expect. ‘ The difficulty here is that, to the naked eye, [deepfakes] are virtually impossible to detect’, said Orlando F. Cabrera C., a senior associate with Hogan Lovells who served on a Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center task force that released guidelines for AI in arbitration last month. ‘ And this is only the beginning. Imagine five or ten years from now—[deepfakes] will be indistinguishable.’ For now, the question of deepfakes seems to have slipped into a broader thicket over how the legal...
Effective immediately Taking effect now, JAMS’ notice confirms that new rules target the surge in AI and smart contracts, which operate as automated market‑makers on crypto exchanges to set investor pay‑outs. In his statement, CEO Chris Poole explained that the framework is designed to confront the explosive growth of artificial intelligence systems and the nexus between AI technologies and dispute resolution. Poole added that JAMS is determined to stay at the leading edge of evolving tech and to deliver robust, forward‑looking solutions for the legal professionals and parties it serves......
The circuit court’s three-judge bench dismissed Romania’s contention that the Court of Justice of the EU’s 2022 rulings retroactively nullified the country’s consent to arbitrate with two Swedish investors under their pre‑existing bilateral investment treaty. According to the decision, the district court’s authority likewise did not depend on a 2019 judgment from a lower European court that was subsequently overturned. Romania’s further claim that the CJEU decisions extinguished the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ( ICSID) tribunal’s award met the same fate. The court noted that Romania identifies no passage in either 2022 CJEU judgment purporting to invalidate the arbitral award. Under the ICSID Convention, the sole mechanism for setting aside an ICSID tribunal’s award is the annulment process—an avenue Romania pursued without success, the opinion explains. Courts of contracting states must recognise awards rendered under the Convention as binding and are not...
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
