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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
As society advances and technology keeps moulding our work and daily lives, approaches to disputes cannot be left unchanged. We are nearing a bold synthesis, as long-standing mechanisms meet the latest advances in blockchain technology for resolution. This yields a flexible, open, and equitable procedure, with Kleros positioned squarely at the vanguard of change today. Kleros, a blockchain-enabled dispute resolution protocol, applies ideas drawn from game theory to produce fair rulings over numerous conflicts cases. Within Kleros proceedings, jurors selected at random examine evidence and cast votes on outcomes. Motivated by staking tokens, at risk of forfeiture for incoherent votes, jurors are driven to deliver thoughtful, balanced, and diligent determinations. Openness and resistance to tampering are guaranteed through the foundational blockchain architecture itself. Various writers and experts have outlined multiple avenues for Kleros rulings to interface with the off-chain...
Egyptian Sponge Iron & Steel Co SAE ( ESISCO) v Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche Sp A, Paris Court of Appeal, 5 December 2023, No 22/20051 What are the practical implications of this case? Beyond restating core tenets of French international arbitration law, this judgment underscores three practical takeaways, particularly salient at the set‑aside stage. First, it serves as a reminder that the Court examines proof through a critical lens and is not overly swift to recognise serious, specific and convergent clues of wrongdoing (such as corruption) that would warrant setting aside an arbitral award. More precisely, it offers useful direction on how the Court handles overseas criminal judgments; it does not automatically adopt their conclusions, particularly where the related prosecutions were comparatively opaque. Second, the ruling supports taking and holding a consistent stance throughout the arbitration and any later annulment...
Trust Arbitration in the Bahamas ( Gabrielle Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd & Others) Gabrielle Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd & Others / Delanson Services v Gabrielle Volpi & Others Consolidated Appeals , 2020/ APP/sts/00013, 2020/ APP/sts/00018 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision delivers robust direction for judges confronted with ‘kitchen sink’ assaults on arbitral awards, while reaffirming foundational rules of both common and statutory trust law on purpose and beneficiary trusts, and is set to exert strong influence on trust arbitration worldwide. Justice Klein offers an authoritative synthesis of the doctrines relevant to challenges against arbitral awards, together with the policy considerations underpinning those doctrines and the practicalities encountered in high‑value, cross‑border trust controversies. His Honour’s ruling underscores that only exceptional situations will justify overturning an arbitral award and that, even within areas of law...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad-hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New Law Journal New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal—anti-suit injunctions and injunctions generally not available against states unless one of the exceptions in section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applies In UK P& I Club N. V. v Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the doctrine of state immunity. Refusing an anti-suit injunction in a commercial dispute with Venezuela, the court underscored the proper objective of adherence to international law: advancing comity and sound relations among states by recognising the sovereignty of other nations. It further held that the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR) should, so far as...
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 underscores that the courts will not allow an artificially crafted pleading to force a dispute into an arbitration clause’s reach. Vale SA (‘ Vale’) advanced three strands to contend that the Part 20 contribution proceedings brought by BHP Group ( UK) Ltd and BHP Group Ltd (together, ‘ BHP’) were enveloped by an arbitration provision in a shareholder agreement (‘ SHA’): that every dispute arising from the parties’ relationship fell within the arbitration clause; that a core issue in the proceedings was an alleged breach of the SHA; that the proceedings concerned technical matters. The arbitration agreement expressly referred to both technical issues and breaches of the SHA. However, the first and third strands failed on the...
Anti-suit injunctions, and injunctions more generally, cannot ordinarily be obtained against states unless an exception in section 13(3) or section 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978 ( SIA 1978) applies, as confirmed in UK P& I Club N. V. and other companies v Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela [2023] EWCA Civ 1497. What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal’s judgment emphasises that section 13(2)(a) reflects the UK’s policy of granting states immunity from injunctive relief enforcing legal rights, whether the context is commercial or not. This ruling is especially significant for parties advancing commercial claims against states. It confirms that SIA 1978, s 13(2)(a) will be upheld by the English courts, with the result that anti-suit injunctions—and injunctions in general—are unavailable against states unless one of the statutory exceptions in SIA 1978, s 13(3) or SIA 1978, s 13(4) is...
The long running Antrix- Devas Saga Deutsche Telekom AG ( DT), a German firm, held shares in Devas Multimedia Pte Ltd ( Devas), an Indian company. Devas concluded an agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd ( Antrix), a state-owned Indian entity, to lease space-segment capacity and to collaborate in building and operating satellites. When Antrix brought the agreement to an end, DT initiated arbitration against India, alleging breach of the India– Germany Bilateral Investment Treaty. In parallel, Devas sued Antrix, and other Devas shareholders pursued claims against India. DT secured a favourable arbitral award in its arbitration. India then asked the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (the Swiss court), the court at the seat of the arbitration, to set the award aside for want of jurisdiction; however, the Swiss court dismissed the application...
On 18 January 2024, Lima lodged a notice of appeal with the DC Circuit and filed a motion to stay enforcement of the court’s order, after US District Judge Ana C Reyes rejected the city’s bid to reconsider that order and, in the same decision, refused its application to push back the briefing schedule. In the underlying claim, the Peruvian capital is challenging a US$8.7m judgment issued by arbitrators at the International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) in favour of former municipal contractor Rutas de Lima SAC. Rutas, which operated a toll station on a stretch of highway it had built for the city, prevailed after asserting the municipality closed the station and deprived it of revenue it says it was owed under a 2013 contract. The city maintains the tribunal failed to weigh alleged bribes that Rutas—an Odebrecht...
For the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters ( Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance ( Cap 645), please refer here. For the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and Hong Kong, please refer here. Introduction Significant advantages will flow from this, notably enabling the execution in the Mainland of Hong Kong judgments, and in Hong Kong of Mainland judgments—both presently limited and difficult—while also elevating Hong Kong’s standing, as the People’s Republic of China’s sole common law jurisdiction, as a venue for resolving disputes. What does the Ordinance cover?......
In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments The Arbitration Blog New Law Journal Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content International arbitration Hong Kong—illegality as a defence—public policy— Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law In G v N [2023] HKCFI 3366 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ( HKCFI) paused an application to set aside enforcement of an arbitral award, and, invoking Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (given effect by section 81 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609 (‘ AO’)), remitted the matter to the arbitrator so the arbitrator could resume the arbitral proceedings and reassess alleged illegality under Hong Kong law. The AO does not permit appeals against an arbitrator’s findings of fact or law (save where...
The Rules are grounded in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ( UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and unveil a suite of reforms designed to boost efficiency and flexibility across arbitral proceedings within the arbitral process. In particular, they provide for the use of electronic means to exchange communications, virtual hearings, summary dismissal of claims, and emergency arbitrator procedures, among other substantial updates. Collectively, these revisions align the Rules with practice at leading institutions, including the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC), the London Court of International Arbitration ( LCIA), the International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ( ICSID) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ( HKIAC), reinforcing CRCICA’s standing as a premier arbitration centre for Africa, the Arab World, and the Middle East and North Africa ( MENA). This post reviews the...
G v N [2023] HKCFI 3366 What are the practical implications of this case? Although findings of fact and law are not appealable in Hong Kong, the courts retain both the power and the duty to examine, as at the date of review, whether enforcing an award would offend Hong Kong public policy, even where the award itself has addressed public policy. In this case, whereas Hong Kong previously followed the guidance in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 ( Tinsley) when deciding whether to grant or refuse relief after a finding of illegality, the approach set out in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467 (‘ Patel’), and affirmed in Monat, is now to be applied. The Patel approach is different: courts and tribunals must assess a range of factors in determining whether relief should be denied following an illegality finding. In Patel, the...
As the sector anticipates the coming year, a cluster of nascent technology arbitration themes is taking shape, spanning digital assets and smart-contract arbitration, proceedings in the metaverse, and role of artificial intelligence. Digital assets are by nature intangible and frequently transnational, since transaction counterparties can be unknown or untraceable within particular jurisdictions. Public venues for their trading, such as cryptocurrency or non-fungible exchanges, often provide scant or no terms and conditions. Overall, determining which fora possess jurisdiction to hear a digital-asset dispute, and which conflict-of-laws principles and substantive legal standards govern, can be challenging in practice for parties involved. Growing debate and attention within the legal community centres on arbitration tied to digital assets, encompassing cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, non-fungible tokens, artificial intelligence, technology and innovation, and the ways they seek to reduce the risks that accompany embracing novel technology across emerging...
What are the practical implications of this case? The Hong Kong court has once more emphasised the separation between the remit and authority of a supervisory court and an enforcement court. In applying the Ordinance, it will construe the refusal grounds for enforcement strictly and narrowly, and will decline to entertain fresh or recycled arguments already dismissed by the arbitral tribunal or the supervisory court. The court may, moreover, exercise its discretion to grant enforcement even where refusal grounds are technically made out. It further draws a clear distinction between an order setting aside an award—being the sole avenue of recourse against an arbitral award under the New York Convention regime—and an order terminating or staying enforcement proceedings before the seat court, which does not undermine the award’s validity or binding force......
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other ADR and arbitration-related developments Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal— Venezuela—insurers unable to block claims A London appellate court on 20 December 2023 declined insurers’ bid to stop Venezuela from advancing €425m claims in foreign courts, notwithstanding arbitration provisions stipulating disputes be resolved in Britain. See News Analysis: Insurers can’t block €425m Venezuela claims made overseas... Commercial Court—conflict of laws—anti-suit injunction In The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd v Sunlink Energies and Resources Ltd [2023] EWHC 3135 ( Comm), the Commercial Court issued a final anti‑suit injunction for Shell against Sunlink, restraining Nigerian proceedings started contrary to an ICC arbitration clause specifying London as the seat. To ascertain the law governing that clause, Mr Justice Baker followed the...
Malaysia confirmed that Stampa was convicted on 8 January 2024 by a Madrid court in criminal proceedings brought by the Spanish Public Prosecution Office and Malaysia. He was handed a six-month prison term, which has been suspended, and he is not expected to serve any time in custody. The charges arose from Stampa’s decision to continue acting as sole arbitrator in the dispute involving the Sulu claimants even after the Spanish courts set aside his appointment in 2021 over a service of process issue. He subsequently transferred the arbitration from Madrid to Paris and issued the award against Malaysia in early 2022. The 8 January 2024 conviction represents another stage in the increasingly contentious and high-profile dispute, which relates to an 1878 land agreement covering a portion of territory along the North Coast of Borneo in what is now Sabah, Malaysia. The area is noted for its...
The high court rejected a petition from Imperial Pacific International LLC, in which the casino developer contended that the justices should resolve the 'significant uncertainty' confronting federal appellate courts over whether arbitration agreements that expressly delegate to arbitrators the choice of the correct forum are displaced when a dispute arguably falls within a carve-out in the clause at issue. In a Ninth Circuit ruling last summer, the appellate court overturned an order that had permitted Imperial Pacific to arbitrate its force majeure defence in a licensing dispute with a local regulator, concluding that the operative arbitration clause expressly excluded such matters from arbitration. Imperial Pacific maintained that the circuit court improperly ventured into the arbitrability issue even though its agreement with the regulator provided that an arbitrator would decide the appropriate venue for the dispute......
Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and another SLP ( C) No 8607 of 2022 and with SLP ( C) No 5833 of 2022 What are the practical implications of this case? The Cox and Kings ruling carries significant consequences for Indian arbitrations involving multiple parties and interlinked contracts. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Group of Companies doctrine operates in India, but emphasised that binding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement depends on assessing multiple factors. These are discussed further below. Practitioners should pay attention to the participation of non-signatories in the contractual affairs of group entities. Where affiliates take part in negotiations or in performing the contractual duties of another company, or, through their conduct, display a unified intention, they can be regarded as bound by the arbitration clause in such circumstances too. What was the...
Here are three international arbitration trends to watch in 2024 The international arbitration community will continue to embrace AI When Chat GPT burst into the spotlight in late 2022 and early 2023, the legal sector hummed with predictions about how it and other Gen AI programmes could reshape lawyers’ daily work. Twelve months later, the din has eased, yet commentators agree the discussion will remain vigorous well into 2024. Wiley Rein LLP partner Joshua B Simmons expects professionals in the international arbitration practice area to shift from mere curiosity about AI’s ability to save time and money to putting it to work in genuinely practical ways. In his view, the coming year will see arbitration lawyers setting themselves apart through measured, sensible roll‑outs of AI that demonstrate tangible value. He also pointed to the White House executive order issued in October 2023, where the Biden...
This piece examines the principal arbitration trajectories for 2024 and the years ahead in a focused, forward-looking manner. Core industries, notably the worldwide mining and commodities arena, are set to keep spawning disputes driven by the energy transition and the scramble for vital raw materials. ESG-linked disagreements are poised to grow and could shape how arbitration addresses these matters in future, redefining expectations and approach. Procedurally, changes to the Arbitration Act 1996, together with the High Court of Justice of England and Wales’ 23 October 2023 decision in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 ( Comm), will steer forthcoming arbitral practice and offer useful guidance on confidentiality, disclosure and professional duty in practice. Global mining and commodities markets Worldwide mining and commodities markets remain unsettled by the Russia– Ukraine conflict and the resulting retaliatory measures. They came under...
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
