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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
RWE AG, et al v Kingdom of the Netherlands, No ARB/21/4, ICSID. ICSID released the order on 15 February 2024, after the tribunal had dispatched it to the parties on 12 January 2024; the panel comprised Lucy Reed as president, James Boykin appointed by the claimants, and Toby Landau KC appointed by the Netherlands. Coal power dispute In 2015, the Eemshaven coal-fired plant in the Netherlands, said to have been constructed at the Dutch government’s behest, entered operation. RWE AG, a German company, with RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV, a Dutch company (together, RWE), is said to have invested over €3bn in the facility. In 2019, the Dutch parliament enacted the Coal Act, prohibiting coal use for electricity generation from 2030 onwards. In February 2021, RWE submitted a request for arbitration against the Netherlands at ICSID, asserting a breach of the ECT......
In this issue: Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related news Webinars New Law Journal Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 High Court—binding non-signatory third parties—arbitration agreements In Mariana v BHP Group ( UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 3281 ( TCC), Vale, a third party, invoked section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 seeking a stay of Part 20 proceedings issued against it by the defendants, BHP. The court found the application was not an abuse of process, but nevertheless refused it on the merits. Vale did not establish that BHP was bound by the arbitration clause in the underlying Shareholder Agreement, nor that the provision should be construed broadly. See News Analysis: To bind or not to bind? High Court...
Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group ( UK) Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 3281 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers clear direction for practitioners on two fronts. First, it addresses issue estoppel and collateral attack as bases for striking out a defence on abuse of process grounds. Second, it considers when an arbitration clause can be construed to capture non-signatory third parties, notably where those entities sit within multi-layered corporate groups. The court reiterates its methodology for construing contracts in this context: the focus remains on the parties’ expressed intentions, assessed case by case, rather than adopting a broadly expansive interpretation across all situations... What was the background? In 2015, Brazil experienced a major environmental catastrophe following the failure of the Fundão Dam. The dam was owned and operated by Samarco Mineração SA (‘ Samarco’), a company jointly owned by Vale S. A....
CZQ v CZS [2023] SGHC( I) 16 What are the practical implications of this case? Staged dispute resolution clauses are now widespread, notably in sectors like construction and life sciences, and in other contracts premised on sustained collaboration between counterparties (for example, joint venture arrangements). It is natural for parties to prefer settling disagreements consensually, so far as practicable, before commencing formal arbitration, since once arbitral proceedings begin it is unlikely the wider contractual relationship can be preserved. That said, the Singapore courts have emphasised that although parties may, by contract, oblige attempts at amicable settlement (and other pre-arbitration mechanisms, such as mediation) before arbitration is started, the language must be explicit in conveying that intention. Drafters preparing multi-tier dispute resolution provisions governed by Singapore law, with Singapore as the arbitral seat, should note that any pre-arbitration steps will be treated as...
What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers pragmatic guidance for respondents facing permission-to-appeal applications, clarifying how and when to apply for conditions to be attached to any grant of permission, with emphasis on timing and procedural steps. That element of the ruling holds broad relevance for civil practitioners and is apt to inform day-to-day case management. It also carries specific significance for arbitration specialists, as it underscores the hurdles in attempting to condition the ability of states—especially EU members—to pursue appeals from orders of the English Courts concerning arbitration awards made against them. What was the background? An ICSID tribunal made an Award of €120,083,287.88 against Spain for losses sustained by the claimants on investments in Spanish solar power installations. In May 2023, Mr Justice Fraser rejected Spain’s application to set aside an order of Mrs Justice Cockerill, which had...
International Skating Union v Commission Case C-124/21 P What are the practical implications of this case? The ISU ruling underscores that, under EU law, arbitral awards resolving EU competition questions must be open to scrutiny by EU State courts, which have the power to refer interpretative questions of EU law to the Court of Justice. Dispensing with such review is liable to entrench primary infringements of EU competition law, especially where an arbitration clause has not been freely bargained for but is imposed through general rules. In consequence of the judgment, the ISU and other sporting organisations may need to revisit and refine the drafting of their mandatory CAS arbitration arrangements, to the extent they purport to govern disputes that raise EU competition law issues. The same holds for arbitration agreements between private parties wherever there is a real prospect that disputes arising between them could...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Webinars New Law Journal Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales High Court—refusal to grant leave to appeal— USD$11bn award set aside Described as ‘the most significant case on international arbitration to be heard in London for many years’, Republic of Nigeria v P& ID [2023] EWHC 3320 ( Comm) follows the 23 October 2023 ruling, which found that the Award on Liability and the Final Award (together, the ‘ Awards’) for US$11bn in P& ID’s favour were the product of fraud and offended public policy. In this decision, the court refused P& ID leave to appeal and held the Awards should be set aside. Debate over leave focused on alleged judicial errors, including findings under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and section 73. P& ID also advanced five...
The Arbitration Rules are available here. Electronic communications and virtual hearings The Rules prioritise electronic correspondence: both the Request for Arbitration and the Answer must be filed electronically, or if that cannot be done, in paper form. Where practicable, electronic filing is the default position, with paper serving as a contingency measure. Notices and communications may, inter alia, be sent by email or by any other telecommunications method, as appropriate to the circumstances at hand. Hard-copy pleadings are required only where a party expressly asks for service by delivery against receipt, registered post or courier ( Articles 4(1), 5(5) and 6(6)). To promote swift and efficient proceedings, the Rules also allow for remote hearings ( Article 30). After consulting the parties and considering the pertinent facts and circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may determine that any hearing be held remotely via video...
Amaplat Mauritius Ltd, et al v Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, et al , No 22-58, D DC, 2024 US Dist Waived immunity In the 9 February 2024 decision, US District Judge Christopher R. Cooper in the District of Columbia determined that the plaintiffs, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd., have adequately pleaded that the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp. ( ZMDC) function as alter egos. Judge Cooper explained that the pleadings sufficiently assert that Zimbabwe exercised control over ZMDC’s affairs and finances, thereby satisfying the standard for an alter-ego relationship and meeting the relevant test. Because ZMDC had entered into memoranda of understanding ( MOUs) with the plaintiffs in which it waived sovereign immunity from suit under section 1605(a)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( FSIA), 28 USC § 1605(a)(1), the judge concluded that Zimbabwe is...
The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA ( I) 10 What are the practical implications of this case? Choosing the seat of arbitration reflects the parties’ selection of the forum and legal system that will regulate the arbitral procedure and any related court proceedings arising from it or connected litigation. Recognising transnational res judicata/issue estoppel, together with the primacy principle, therefore safeguards a fundamental feature of arbitration, namely party autonomy as a core organising value. The decision confirms that the doctrine applies in Singapore within the realm of international commercial arbitration conducted under the framework of the New York Convention, and in turn will: narrow divergence in judicial determinations and reduce inconsistency across outcomes; and enhance the efficiency of arbitral proceedings and improve the effectiveness of the arbitral...
A Ltd v B Pte Ltd , 4A_172/2023 dated 11 January 2024 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment marks a pivotal pronouncement by Switzerland’s highest court on the ambit and reach of the Singapore– China BIT, and on how the Supreme Court reads the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ( VCLT) when assessing the BIT’s jurisdictional functioning and operation, particularly the extent to which the treaty empowers tribunals in this specific context... What was the background? On 11 January 2024 (published 30 January 2024), the Swiss Supreme Court delivered a German-language ruling earmarked for inclusion in the official court reports, signalling its importance. The dispute involved two Singaporean investors with phosphate mining operations in China. Invoking the 1985 Singapore– China BIT, they alleged China had effected unlawful indirect expropriation. The treaty’s dispute resolution clause conferred jurisdiction on an arbitral tribunal solely for...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Investment arbitration treaty Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related news The Arbitration Blog New Law Journal Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales High Court—anti-arbitration suits—use it or lose it? In Tyson v Partner Reinsurance [2023] EWHC 3243 ( Comm), the court considered two applications: a stay in favour of arbitration, and an anti‑arbitration injunction. The matter was striking because the parties executed two reinsurance contracts only eight days apart, each addressing the same risk, term and counterparties. The first chose English law as the governing law and featured an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the English courts. The second selected New York law and incorporated a New York arbitration clause. The defendant, Partner...
Tyson International Company Ltd applicant and Partner Reinsurance Europe SE, [2023] EWHC 3243 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment stands out for three main reasons of practical significance. First, it addresses how to resolve clashing jurisdiction clauses within a suite of contracts. Secondly, it examines whether market custom and practice can influence the construction and understanding of a contract. Finally, it surveys the principles to be applied when dealing with anti-arbitration and anti-suit injunctions in this context. Where a single contract contains both an exclusive jurisdiction provision in favour of a court and an arbitration clause provision, English courts have previously read that seemingly pathological pairing as signifying that the designated court has supervisory jurisdiction as the seat of the arbitration, with the merits of the dispute to be determined by the stipulated arbitral process. This decision...
Dassault Aviation SA v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 5 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will interest anyone concerned with the canons of contractual construction. Those who draft or advise on non-assignment clauses will find it especially pertinent. Where an absolute bar on assignment is intended, wording must be explicit and unambiguous. Accordingly, drafters seeking to preclude transfers must choose language that leaves no room for implication. In Dassault Aviation, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is inadequate to contend that a party should have appreciated, or in fact did appreciate, that assignment was a likely result of its conduct where the transfer is not the party’s own act but instead arises by operation of law. The Court’s stance can fairly be characterised as a strict black-letter approach. That black-letter reading is...
The French State v The London Steam- Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd; The Kingdom of Spain v The London Steam- Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd [2023] EWHC 3263 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers practitioners in the UK courts clear direction on the threshold for securing permission to appeal in the context of compulsory arbitration. It delineates two distinct benchmarks relevant to such applications and clarifies how they operate in practice for challenges arising out of arbitration awards and related court decisions. The benchmark for appealing a conclusion that parties have contravened their arbitral duties under AA 1996, s 69(8). The benchmark for the grant of a leapfrog certificate under AJA 1969, s 12 in these circumstances. More broadly, the court confirmed that leave to appeal under AA 1996, s 69(8) depends on a two-limb...
In this issue Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related developments The Arbitration Blog New Law Journal Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Arbitration in England & Wales High Court— ICISD—arbitral awards v state immunity In Border Timbers Ltd and another v Republic of Zimbabwe [2024] EWHC 58 ( Comm), the English High Court concluded that Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention does not amount to a prior written agreement to submit to jurisdiction for the purposes of section 2 of the State Immunity Act 1978 ( SIA 1978). In reaching that view, the court declined to adopt a body of English and international authority suggesting the ICSID Convention...
Operafund Eco- Invest Sicav plc, et al v Kingdom of Spain [2024] EWHC 82 ( Comm) On 25 January 2024, Lord Justice Peter Fraser, sitting in the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division ( Commercial Court), delivered the judgment. Jurisdictional challenge Fraser LJ held that no decision can presently be taken on Spain’s 6 January 2023 application to set aside the court order of 14 September 2021, which registered an ICSID award made in 2019 in favour of Operafund Eco- Invest SICAV plc, incorporated in the Republic of Malta, and Schwab Holding AG, a Swiss company. He concluded that the court cannot rule on Spain’s jurisdictional objection to that registration until the Court of Appeal for England and Wales has determined the same issue concerning enforcement of an award against Spain in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL, et al v Kingdom of Spain [2023] EWHC 1226 (...
Border Timbers Ltd and another v Republic of Zimbabwe [2024] EWHC 58 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling highlights significant questions about enforcing ICSID awards and how the ICSID Convention interfaces with the SIA 1978. Zimbabwe has leave to appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal will soon address these matters. Those points will therefore receive appellate scrutiny in due course. If the judgment stands, sovereign immunity will be implicated only when, in proceedings to register an ICSID award, the state has been served with the without notice order. At that point, the state can seek to have the order discharged. The permissible bases are limited: the order must have gone beyond straightforward recognition and enforcement of the award, or there must have been a failure to provide full and frank disclosure. A challenge cannot be mounted on the...
A d.o.o. v B. S. A., ZSU.2023.87, Obergericht, Zivilgericht, 4. Kammer What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the delicate interplay between courts and arbitral tribunals regarding arbitral jurisdiction. Such questions can appear in domestic matters, yet they multiply in cross-border disputes where courts in different countries may reach inconsistent outcomes. For parties, the issue is not only ‘who has jurisdiction?’ but equally ‘who decides that question?’ and ‘who is bound by the answer?’ Early engagement of experienced counsel is therefore vital. The Aargau High Court also affirmed what many scholars had long maintained (though not without debate): when a Swiss court refuses to hear a case on the basis that the parties opted for arbitration, that refusal has no binding effect. As a result, other courts and the arbitral tribunal may legitimately arrive at a different position. Further, the ruling...
D v Republic of India I ZB 12/23, Bundesgerichthof What are the practical implications of this case? The decision is more reassuring than path‑breaking: on 12 October 2023 the Federal Court of Justice set out the reach of Achmea and Komstroy, confirming that EU‑law objections do not undermine every investment BIT award. Put simply, Achmea and Komstroy do not taint all such awards. Investors may trust that extra‑ EU BIT awards will, as a rule, be enforceable in Germany. Attempts by third countries to rely on the intra‑ EU objection to resist enforcement are impermissible. What was the background? Background Deutsche Telekom AG, a German telecommunications company, invested about USD 97m in a multimedia firm based in India. That entity had secured rights under a lease with an Indian state‑owned company to use the S‑band to provide mobile telephony and broadband data services in the Indian market. In...
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
