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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Elisabeth Regina Maria Gabriele von Pezold v Republic of Zimbabwe [2023] MLJU 2657 What are the practical implications of this case? Although Malaysia has appeared as respondent in three ICSID arbitrations so far, no party had previously sought recognition of an award under the ICSID Convention before this ruling. That fact, by itself, renders the Malaysian High Court’s decision noteworthy and consequential. The court emphasised that the lack of a specific procedural regime for enforcing ICSID awards in Malaysia is immaterial—the courts may fashion suitable procedures where required, adapting or modifying existing processes to bridge any procedural gaps. In addition, where a party asks only for recognition of an arbitral award, there is no obligation to identify assets, trace property, or point to executable targets. Taken together, these clarifications underline the decision’s practical significance nationally......
UPDATED : The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/713 Signed off on 24 May 2024. The UK signed the convention on 12 January 2024 ( LNB News 12/01/2024 46: UK signs the Hague Judgments Convention). Since that point, work has continued to finalise amendments to existing legislation, establishing the legal framework required to enable the convention to operate. The different aspects of this are addressed by: The Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 2) Rules 2024, SI 2024/595—these rules amend Part 74 of the CPR, notably to allow registration of foreign judgments under the convention and to provide for certificates for judgments of England and Wales for enforcement in other countries that are contracting states to the convention. Further, the amendments also revise existing provisions in the rules for the Hague Choice of Court Agreements...
In this issue: Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Sector-and industry-specific arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Investment treaty arbitration Sweden—intra- EU investment—incompatibility with EU law—adhering to Achmea, Komstroy and PL Holdings The Svea Court of Appeal has set aside an arbitral award issued in a dispute between the Kingdom of Spain and a Luxembourg-based venture capital fund, finding that, because the claim concerned an investor from one Member State ( Luxembourg) proceeding against another ( Spain), the award conflicts with fundamental principles of the Swedish legal order. This ruling is the most recent Swedish decision annulling an arbitral award. It is nevertheless expected that more judgments of this kind will follow in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decisions in Achmea, Komstroy and PL Holdings. See News Analysis: Another case on the...
Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd asked the Second Circuit to vacate a lower court ruling as moot and remand with directions to dismiss the action brought against Horseshoe Re Ltd. The appeals court stated the federal court had jurisdiction over the matter but lacked lawful authority to remove a Bermuda arbitrator from office. ' After an award issues, there is no longer any dispute about whether the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention to hear pre-award petitions seeking removal of arbitrators,' Endurance said on appeal. Counsel for Horseshoe agreed to the relief sought, according to the letter. Court filings indicated on 7 May 2024 that the hearing remained still set for 8 May 2024. Particulars of the award were not disclosed publicly. A Horseshoe spokesperson declined to comment, and an Endurance representative did not immediately respond right away to a request for...
Case no T 15200-22: Kingdom of Spain v Tridos SICAV II What are the practical implications of this case? In this dispute, the claimant, the Kingdom of Spain, first and foremost pursued annulment of the arbitral award under s 33(1) or (2) of the Swedish Arbitration Act ( SAA), asserting the award was issued in a way that conflicted with the fundamental principles of the Swedish legal order (ordre public). In the alternative, Spain sought to have the award set aside under SAA, s 34(1). The Court of Appeal opened its analysis by emphasising that the invalidity grounds in SAA, s 33 and the setting-aside grounds in SAA, s 34 protect different interests. Invalidity is directed at safeguarding public or third-party interests, while setting aside is designed to protect the parties to the arbitration. Accordingly, invalidity grounds can be relied upon without any time bar, and the...
In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related news Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content International arbitration Hong Kong—award enforcement—challenge— Soleh guidelines In China National Machine Tools v Nationsync Electrical and Machinery, China National Machine Tools (‘ Plaintiff’) sought recognition and enforcement in Hong Kong of a CIETAC award rendered in Mainland China against Nationsync Electrical and Machinery (‘ Defendant’). The award obliged the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff more than RMB 232m, and the Hong Kong court granted leave to enforce. The Defendant relied on section 95 of the Arbitration Ordinance to resist enforcement and applied for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. In parallel, the Plaintiff asked for security—both for costs and for the awarded sum—if any stay were granted. The Plaintiff objected to providing security, asserting that, since Karaha Bodas v...
Kingdom of Spain v RWE Renewables Gmb H and RWE Renewables Iberia, S. A. U. What are the practical implications of this case? The decision carries considerable importance for parties seeking to enforce intra‑ EU ICSID awards beyond the EU. It should further reinforce investors’ position over the longer term. For investors, it is reassuring that German courts are unlikely to obstruct the execution of intra‑ EU ICSID awards outside the EU. Moreover, the Court’s robust rebuke of the abusive reliance on the standstill clause in the context of EU State aid rules warrants particular attention and careful scrutiny. What was the background? The RWE Companies obtained an ICSID award against Spain for USD 28,080,000.00 plus interest, issued on 18 December 2020. Subsequent procedural steps included the following: April 2021: Spain commenced annulment proceedings before an ICSID ad hoc committee; on 20 March 2024 Spain’s...
The use of AI in Dispute Resolution In the context of dispute resolution, the AI most commonly considered is machine learning, in which a system is built to spot patterns in the training data it receives and to generate outputs by drawing on those patterns. As additional data is processed, the model refines and recalibrates its pattern mapping. With continued exposure to further examples, its mapping becomes progressively more precise. The training set is chosen by humans, yet the pattern mapping that follows operates automatically. Existing and potential uses of AI in disputes include: Disclosure — As electronic disclosure has grown in volume, AI-based tools have been deployed to control the related time and cost. Predictive coding, first endorsed for use in English High Court litigation in 2016, depends on an initial human review of a representative sample of...
In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Investment treaty arbitration The Arbitration Blog Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England and Wales Supreme Court—appeal dismissed—anti-suit injunction upheld In Uni Credit Bank Gmb H v Rus Chem Alliance LLC, the Supreme Court rejected Rus Chem Alliance’s ( RCA) appeal and confirmed the anti-suit injunction ( ASI) made by the Court of Appeal on 29 January 2024. The injunction bars RCA from pursuing its claim against Uni Credit in Russia. The Supreme Court delivered its decision ahead of releasing the judgment, as parallel arbitration proceedings in Russia were adjourned until 6 May 2024 to allow the UK Supreme Court time to decide. The full judgment will follow in due course......
中國機床銷售與技術服務有限公司 ( China National Machine Tool Sales and Technical Service Corporation) — Plaintiff; 國晟機電設備有限公司 ( Nationsync Electrical And Machinery Equip. Corp Ltd) — Defendant; HCCT 48/2023; [2024] HKCFI 958 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the Hong Kong courts’ pro‑arbitration outlook. Attempts to resist enforcement of an award are not treated lightly, and the court will contemplate dispensing with security only where: the award is patently invalid; and the ease of enforcing the award would not be compromised by declining security. The Hong Kong court confirmed the applicability of the Soleh guidelines in Hong Kong. What was the background? The dispute proceeded to arbitration under the 2015 CIETAC Rules. The arbitral process was initiated after the plaintiff obtained an injunction that froze the defendant’s assets in Hong Kong......
The team behind arbitrate AD The registry Kristin Campbell- Wilson has now taken up the role of executive director at the newly established Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre. Bringing more than twenty years’ international arbitration expertise, she most recently served at the SCC Arbitration Institute, first as deputy secretary general and subsequently as secretary general. Her selection clearly underscores arbitrate AD’s strong focus on streamlined case administration in practice. It likewise marks a positive step for gender balance within the sector. The court The arbitrate AD Court (the Court) exercises oversight of arbitrations conducted under the arbitrate AD Rules. Under the arbitrate AD Rules, the Court is charged with appointing arbitrators, deciding challenges to arbitrators, and scrutinising arbitral awards, among other duties and responsibilities. The Court comprises 15 leading international arbitration practitioners, with women accounting for nearly half. This varied bench has wide geographic reach, with members based...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Investment arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales State Immunity—waiver of execution— State Immunity Act 1978 In General Dynamics UK Ltd v The State of Libya [2024] EWHC 472 ( Comm), the High Court determined that Libya’s acceptance, within a contract governed by Swiss law, of the wording ‘[b]oth parties agree that the decision of the arbitration panel shall be final, binding and wholly enforceable’ amounted to ‘written consent’ for the purposes of section 13(3) of the State Immunity Act 1978 ( SIA 1978)…...
More than three hundred academics, among them Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, warned that investor–state dispute settlement ( ISDS) enables corporations to contest domestic policies and leave taxpayers facing sizeable judgements, all with inadequate oversight. In a letter dated 12 April 2024, they stated that ISDS lacks many of the basic protections and procedures ordinarily available in a court of law. Affected citizens or domestic entities have no channel to intervene or take part in any meaningful way in ISDS disputes. Nor are there effective routes of appeal and, as a result, no means to correct legal or factual mistakes in arbitral determinations. They also stressed that numerous private lawyers selected as arbitrators simultaneously act for investors in other legal actions brought against governments, underscoring concerns about conflicts and impartiality within the system......
General Dynamics UK Ltd v The State of Libya [2024] EWHC 472 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? States and entities dealing with state parties should pay attention to the High Court’s ruling on what amounts to ‘written consent’ for the purposes of s 13(3) of the State Immunity Act 1978, which operates as an exception to the general immunity from execution. In this dispute, the court held that language by which the state agreed an arbitration award would be ‘wholly enforceable’ constituted such written consent. Pelling J confirmed that s 13(3) does not demand any special, particular or formulaic wording. He concluded that the parties’ objective was to allow an award under the contract to be enforced as if between commercial counterparties. As with all contractual drafting, the clearer the words used to capture the parties’...
In this issue: International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content International arbitration France—third parties—enforcement proceedings—intervention In India v Devas Shareholders and US Companies, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on 13 February 2024 that entities not party to the arbitration (the US Companies), to whom the Devas shareholders had validly assigned their rights in the arbitral awards, were permitted to intervene in India’s appeal against the exequatur of those awards. This applied even though the relevant provisions of the French Code of Civil Procedure for enforcement and annulment do not expressly provide for such participation. More broadly, the decision confirms that, unless the arbitration agreement expressly limits or prohibits the transfer of rights to third parties, those subrogated to the rights of an original party may intervene in...
Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Eurobank appeal On 5 April 2024, the Canadian Supreme Court, by a 7–2 majority, turned down Eurobank Ergasias SA’s appeal in its case against Bombardier. The majority found in favour of Montreal‑based Bombardier and the National Bank of Canada, concluding that the bank had to withhold payment to Eurobank, the beneficiary of the letter of credit, owing to fraudulent conduct by the Hellenic Ministry of National Defence. The Court stated that the fraud exception governed the Greek bank’s demand for payment under the Canadian letter of counter‑guarantee. As Eurobank, as beneficiary, was aware of and participated in HMOD’s fraud, that misconduct was attributable to the bank itself. In dissent, two justices would have allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate rulings, and dismissed Bombardier’s action. The dispute stems from 1998, when Bombardier entered into a procurement contract with the Hellenic Ministry of...
Arif Azim Co Ltd v Aptech Ltd, [ Arbitration Petition No 29 of 2023] [ Case name and citation] What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment clarifies limitation for filing a Section 11(6) application under the Arbitration Act. In the absence of an expressly stipulated period, the court resolved the issue by holding that Article 137 of the Limitation Act operates as the residual provision. This pronouncement settles the long‑running uncertainty surrounding the timeline for Section 11 applications. It will, in practical terms, guide parties on when to advance claims and move for the appointment of an arbitrator, helping them avoid the sting of limitation. Equally, the court's insistence on testing and rejecting non-arbitrable or dead claims at the threshold aims to shield parties from being drawn into drawn-out and costly arbitral proceedings. Such a filter should, ultimately, discourage needless...
In this issue: Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related developments Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 AA 1996, s 24 — potential bias — disqualification of arbitrator On 22 February 2024, in H1 v W [2024] EWHC 382 ( Comm), the Commercial Court within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales removed a sole arbitrator under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The decision was based on justified doubts as to impartiality and a real possibility of bias, and it provides added guidance on when arbitrators should be disqualified. See News Analysis: Bias ruling offers guidance on disqualifying arbitrators ( H1 v W), by Andrew Connelly, associate, and Ian Meredith, partner, at K& L Gates LLP......
What are the practical implications of this case? The court emphasised that a committal application is not about any contempt in general, but whether the claimants have proved, to the criminal standard, the particular contempt specified in the application notice. Where no amended notice exists, yet the contempt argued in submissions departs from that notice, appellants are not entitled to advance that alternative case, consistent with the heightened standard of procedural fairness required in such proceedings (para [48]). The court also affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that, where satisfying the criminal standard properly hinges on expert evidence of foreign law, the absence of such expert material is fatal to the application (paras [51]; [58]). Finally, although the language deployed in an affidavit was excessive, within the setting of long-running, vituperative litigation this was insufficient to meet the requirements for indemnity...
In this issue: Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related developments New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Arbitration Bill—amendments— Special Public Bill Committee The UK Parliament has released proposed changes to the Arbitration Bill for consideration by the Special Public Bill Committee, scheduled for 27 March 2024. See: LNB News 25/03/2024 107. Arbitration Bill— Further amendments Parliament has also issued two additional amendment papers for discussion in the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee, including a marshalled list of amendments. The Committee will meet on 27 March 2024. See: LNB News 26/03/2024 63......
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
