Legal News

The justices declined to take up the petition from Wenbin Que, who sought to overturn a Ninth Circuit ruling that left him liable for a US$55m arbitral award in favour of fellow Chinese national Lihua Song after a soured investment, arising from a failed deal. Que alleges a ‘rogue’ member of a three-arbitrator panel walked out of an active hearing to wander his flat, use the toilet, and embark on a ‘misadventure’ with an unrelated woman that included travelling by car and boarding a train. He argued that courts have recognised that bias or misconduct by one participant on a multi-member tribunal can infect the entire proceeding. According to the petition, the Ninth Circuit accepted that this conduct was ‘concerning’, but set that concern aside on the basis that ‘the remaining two arbitrators behaved properly’. That...

National Iranian Oil Company ( NIOC) v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd & Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd — ECLI: NL: HR:2026:98; Case no: 24/04670 What are the practical implications of this case? Under Dutch law, this ruling confirms that an order granting leave to enforce an arbitral award cannot be appealed, whether it is domestic or foreign. The restriction flows from the asymmetric appeal rule: only a decision refusing leave is appealable ( Article 1062(3) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). Since 2010, the Supreme Court has held that this rule equally governs foreign arbitral awards ( Rosneft v Yukos Capital, ECLI: NL: HR:2010: BM1679). The present judgment leaves no doubt: that line of authority stands after sixteen years. The takeaway is clear. A losing party must act at once when its opponent seeks leave to enforce in the...

Arbitration—restraining arbitration proceedings pending a removal application or procedural challenge ( A v B & another) Party A v Party B and Another [2026] EWHC 327 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling has concrete, practitioner-focused consequences for arbitration specialists and commercial disputes lawyers. Two key themes emerge from the judgment. Each limits prospects for court intervention. To begin with, it makes plain that the court will not halt an arbitration merely because a s 24 removal bid or a s 68 serious irregularity complaint has been filed. Section 24(3) expressly envisages the arbitration carrying on whilst a removal request is outstanding. Advisers should warn clients that launching a court challenge will not usually ‘pause’ the procedural timetable; delay-driven tactics are unlikely to prosper and may undermine credibility. Further, the decision powerfully reaffirms the...

Next Era Energy Global & another v Kingdom of Spain [2026] SGHC 43 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries concrete takeaways for arbitration and public international law practitioners. It clarifies that joining the ICSID Convention constitutes a submission to jurisdiction for award enforcement in Singapore. Practitioners can assuredly tell investor clients that Singapore remains a dependable venue to register and enforce ICSID awards. Spain’s efforts to block enforcement on sovereign immunity grounds failed across the board: under the Submission Exception, the Arbitration Exception, and on interests of justice. In practice, immunity-based resistance to ICSID enforcement by States in Singapore is almost entirely foreclosed. The judgment also continues Singapore’s consistent rejection of the Intra‑ EU Objection. Leaning heavily on DNZ v DOA [2026] SGHC( I) 1, a recent Singapore International Commercial Court ( SICC) decision, the court dismissed Spain’s...

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 Background These linked appeals examined whether Spain and Zimbabwe, each subject to arbitral awards made under the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention), could invoke sovereign immunity to undo the High Court’s registration of those awards pursuant to the Arbitration ( International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 ( A( IID) A 1966). Section 1 of the State Immunity Act 1978 ( SIA 1978) confers immunity on foreign states from the jurisdiction of UK courts, save as qualified by sections 2 to 11 of the SIA 1978. In that framework, only sections 2 and 9 were said to be pertinent in these matters here. By section 2(2), a state is not...

What are tihe practical implications of the case? This ruling firmly reaffirms the UAE courts’ pro‑arbitration approach and sets out clear, practical pointers for those in construction and arbitration. Article 8(1) will be enforced strictly. A prompt jurisdictional challenge grounded in an arbitration agreement will usually prevail unless that agreement is null, void, or incapable of performance. Non‑signatory tactics will be closely examined. The court looks to the real legal and factual matrix, not the pleaded cause. If the entitlement arises from subcontract works, recasting it via employer acknowledgements will not bypass the arbitration clause unless those documents create a genuinely independent, unconditional duty to pay. Conditional guarantees and comfort letters may not trigger direct liability. Where payment undertakings are contingent on the main contractor’s non‑payment or tied to the main...

On 24 February 2026, High Court Judge Andre Maniam ruled that the Kingdom of Spain had not shown it was protected by Singapore’s State Immunity Act 1979 ( SIA 1979) in connection with enforcing an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ( ICSID) tribunal award in favour of Dutch investor Next Era Energy Global Holdings BV and its Spanish subsidiary. Maniam J held that Next Era is correct that the SIA 1979’s exceptions to state immunity apply to Spain, despite Spain’s assertion that it never consented to arbitrate because there was no valid arbitration agreement. Spain maintains that, if it succeeds here in contesting the arbitration agreement, the award would be undermined so as not to be registrable, and Spain would not have submitted to the Singapore court’s jurisdiction over recognition or enforcement; that position has been rejected by the English and...

DQR v DQT [2026] SGHC 23 What are tihe practical implications of the case? The decision in DQR v DQT offers clear direction for related companies drawn into arbitration before the courts. In this matter, the second claimant declined to participate in the arbitration and was compelled by the defendant to be joined, despite the likelihood that its stance would have aligned with the defendant’s, as they were operating as an ‘unincorporated joint venture’. By opting for non-participation, the second claimant was barred from seeking any share of the damages awarded to the defendant. The court also acknowledged that all matters arising under the joint venture deed—including whether damages should be paid into a joint venture account, and any allocation of proceeds between the joint venturers—were ‘completely outside its jurisdiction’ (para [86]). The case serves as a timely reminder that related entities must...

( Stabil LLC, et al. v Russian Federation , No. 25-7005, DC Cir.) Seizure of assets The consolidated appeals, the panel noted, stem from a single rupture that rippled across multiple sectors yet arose from the same moment and place. In 2014, Russia entered Crimea, a region internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. Within weeks it asserted control and set about reorganising Crimea’s economy. Ukrainian-owned businesses operating there — some delivering electricity, others fuel — were swept up in the transition. What followed were seizures, nationalisations and the effective handover of private assets to entities under Russian control, the DC Circuit panel wrote. The panel then affirmed the finding of jurisdiction over petitions to confirm arbitral awards issued by Permanent Court of Arbitration ( PCA) tribunals pursuant to the Ukraine– Russia BIT, in favour of the appellees in both cases. The first matter, No....

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International 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 Court partially sets aside arbitration award, holding NPS not a State organ but Presidential instructions constituted Treaty ‘measures’ The Commercial Court heard a challenge brought by the Republic of Korea under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 seeking to set aside a final award dated 20 June 2023. In the arbitration, Elliott Associates, LP ( EALP) had succeeded on its case that Korea breached the USA– Korea Free Trade Agreement (the Treaty) arising from the 2015 merger between Samsung C& T and Cheil Industries. The central issue was whether Article 11.1(3)’s jurisdictional criterion was...

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Through Its Authorised Signatory Yogesh Dalal Versus Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited And Others ( 2025 INSC 1365) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling delineates the limits of judicial involvement in s 11 proceedings: courts lack jurisdiction to revisit orders made under s 11 of the Act and are confined to a prima facie check of whether an arbitration agreement exists. The court underlined that, once an arbitrator is appointed, it becomes functus officio and cannot sit in judgement on the very point it has already resolved. This demarcation means s 11 orders are not amenable to review, the Act permitting only a threshold examination of the agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, parties are warned against deploying litigation as a delaying ploy—such as seeking review of s 11 appointment orders—with the prospect of imposition of costs and,...

Al Ghurair First LLC and others v Heirs of Saif Ahmed Majid Al Ghurair Commercial Appeals Nos 1267 & 1316 of 2025 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the DCC’s pro-arbitration orientation, evidenced by its rigorous application of the arbitration clause set out in the company’s articles of incorporation. The DCC concluded that parties may not evade the arbitration-specific procedural regime under the FAL—and, in particular, the curial courts’ role in granting interim relief under Article 18 FAL—by narrowing or re-casting their claims, where those claims remain within the ambit of the arbitration clause. In effect, parties cannot obtain court involvement by presenting the case as confined to procedure or evidence if, in substance, the step requested is interim relief within Article 18 FAL. Consequently, stripping out substantive relief (eg, a demand for profits) and confining the...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc 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 & Wales Court of Appeal clarifies approach to conflicting dispute resolution clauses In Tyson v GIC Re, India [2026] EWCA Civ 40, the Court of Appeal set out how to read competing dispute resolution provisions. If inconsistent terms—such as rival arbitration and jurisdiction clauses—appear within a single document, it should be construed holistically, aiming to give effect to all clauses where possible. That principle has limited application where the inconsistencies arise across different documents and a hierarchy provision or ‘confusion clause’ is engaged. In those circumstances, as in this case, the hierarchy clause prevails. This notable judgment...

Seacrest Group Ltd (in Provisional Liquidation in Bermuda) v BCPR Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 3266 ( Comm) The relevant facts To understand the court’s conclusion on the significance of statements made by the tribunal after releasing its final award, the following matters are material. In closing submissions in the arbitration, Seacrest, the claimant, introduced a new contention on contractual interpretation, known as the ‘ Exchange Rate Issue’. The tribunal’s award did not refer to Seacrest’s argument on the Exchange Rate Issue......

Tyson International Company Ltd v Gic Re, India, Corporate Member Ltd (sued as the Sole Corporate Member for Syndicate 1947 At Lloyd’s of London for the 2021 and 2022 Years of Account) [2026] EWCA Civ 40 What are the practical implications of this case? Although the court aims to uphold the parties’ contractual bargain, it will be cautious about knitting together incompatible terms in a manner that reverses what the parties agreed. In intricate contractual frameworks where clashing dispute resolution clauses may appear, the ruling underlines the need to state clearly which provision has primacy. A precisely drafted hierarchy or ‘confusion clause’ can be pivotal in resolving jurisdictional contests. Of particular relevance to the insurance and reinsurance market, the decision also has broader application for multi-jurisdictional commercial contracts. Of note: where a hierarchy provision (or ‘confusion clause’) exists, the court will construe it in its...

John Lapaglia v Valve Corporation Case No: 3:25-cv-00833- RBM- DDL What are the practical implications of this case? In the US, parties attempting to overturn an arbitration award must first establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction—either the existence of a federal question or satisfaction of diversity jurisdiction requirements. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue; unless one of these grounds is shown, the court will not hear the case. Allegations about artificial intelligence ( AI), even when cast as excess of authority or manifest disregard of law under the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA), will not be reached until that jurisdictional hurdle is cleared. In this dispute, even had the court found it could hear the matter, vacatur under the FAA would still be far from a ‘slam-dunk’. The parties must, inter alia, prove that the deployment of AI amounted to a manifest disregard of the law, or that AI...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Tort claims and contractual exclusions—jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal In MS ‘ V1’ v SY Co [2026] EWHC 52 ( Comm), the shipowners pursued tort claims in the courts in China against the shipbuilders to recover costs spent removing asbestos found in the ships’ fabric. The owners had been assigned the shipbuilding contracts’ quality guarantees by the original buyer, and the builders contended that, under English law as the contracts’ governing law, the guarantees excluded liability for the tort claims. Given the arbitration clause, the court held that the arbitral tribunal was competent to decide whether those contractual exclusions extended to actions in tort. The...

(1) IGCF General Partner Ltd and (2) The Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund L. P. Appellants and White Crystals Ltd [2026] CICA ( Civ) 3 What are the practical implications of this case? The overarching message of this ruling is that section 4 of the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Act (1997 Revision) ( FAAEA) means what it says: save for compelling reasons to the contrary, the court will require parties to honour their agreement to submit disputes to arbitration and will stay proceedings that offend that bargain, reaffirming the Cayman Islands’ strong legislative and judicial policy in favour of arbitration. Although this is essentially a restatement of settled Cayman law, the judgment, on its particular facts, demonstrates the court’s uncompromising approach and cautions contracting parties that they should expect to be held to their privately negotiated promise to arbitrate, even after the voluntary...

( Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co Ltd v Dynamic Industries, Inc, et al, No 23-1396, E. D. La., 2026 US Dist. LEXIS 19714) Decision dated 30 January 2026. Oil and gas contract In March 2023, Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co Ltd commenced proceedings in a Louisiana state court against Dynamic Industries Inc, Dynamic Industries International LLC and Dynamic Industries International Holdings Inc (collectively, ‘ Dynamic’). It sought US$1,355,000 for materials, products and services supplied to an oil and gas project Dynamic was undertaking in Saudi Arabia, alleging Dynamic failed to make the payments owed under the contract. Dynamic removed the action to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, then applied to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds or, alternatively, to stay the case and compel arbitration. Objective intent On 6 November 2023, Judge Greg Gerard Guidry refused Dynamic’s motion to compel (2023 US...

KGLNG E& P Pty Ltd v Santos Toga Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 114 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies that where commercial counterparties peg a payment duty to an obligation in another contract that contains an arbitration clause, they are taken to accept the result of any arbitral determination of that obligation—particularly where the third party had notice of the arbitration agreement. It endorses prevailing market use of ‘back-to-back’ drafting in complex project structures, and places the burden of any miscalculation, or even a mistaken award, on the party that chooses to mirror the payer’s actual liability. For contractors, joint venture participants, and financiers with liabilities tied to third-party arrangements, the decision shows that tethering payment liability to another contract’s provisions can import that contract’s dispute resolution outcomes, including arbitration awards even if wrong......