Legal News

Oran and Oaken v Oved CA 004/2025 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision signals that the Dubai International Financial Centre ( DIFC) Courts will be slow to issue anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings unless such relief is anchored in a recognised head of DIFC jurisdiction. It also makes plain that Article 32 of the DIFC Court Law No. 12 of 2004 (the Judicial Authority Law) may supply a power, but does not, by itself, bestow jurisdiction on the court. The judgment further confirms that a reference to Dubai in an arbitration clause does not automatically denote the DIFC, and that identifying the seat is a fact-specific, context-driven inquiry. Lastly, it offers guidance on the correct reading of a consumer contract for the purposes of Section 12 of the 2008 DIFC Arbitration Law, as...

Summary of the case Factual and procedural background The dispute originated from a contract for the purchase and provision of surface treatment services agreed between a surface treatment company (the ‘ Claimant’) and a manufacturer of lifting and handling equipment (the ‘ Respondent’). Under this arrangement, the Claimant performed surface treatments on metal profiles. After the Respondent terminated the contract, the Claimant brought proceedings before the Paris Commercial Court, seeking compensation for contractual breaches and for the sudden cessation of the commercial relationship. The Respondent, inter alia, raised a plea to jurisdiction, asserting that the Commercial Court lacked authority due to an arbitration agreement within the contract. On 4 July 2022, the Paris Commercial Court dismissed the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and rejected the Claimant’s claims on the merits. The Claimant appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal. The parties’ arguments A central question on appeal was whether the...

MS ‘ V1’ Gmb H & Co KG and another v SY Co Ltd [2026] EWHC 52 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? MS ‘ V1’ & Another v SY Co considers the English-law doctrines of ‘conditional benefits’ and ‘derived rights obligation’. Those principles mean that where an assignee or a subrogated party takes rights or advantages under an assigned or subrogated contract, its ability to enjoy and enforce those rights is qualified by the contractual constraints attached to them (for example, liability limitations or a requirement to arbitrate). An assignee is not itself a party to the bargain and so is not bound by the express contractual promises. Instead, it is subject to equivalent equitable duties that restrain it from seeking to enforce rights derived from the contract in a way that is inconsistent with the...

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England and Wales Disclosure of confidential arbitration documents to facilitate policing of an undertaking The High Court of England and Wales, in Bourlakova v Edelweiss Investments Inv [2025] EWHC 3085 ( Ch), directed the production of materials connected to a Moscow arbitration in which the respondent, Edelweiss, participated. Although the relevant arbitral rules required confidentiality, (i) recognised exceptions applied; and (ii) in any event, disclosure carried no realistic prospect of criminal prosecution. Weighing the issues, the court held that confidentiality concerns were surpassed by the potential jeopardy to Edelweiss’ assets arising from an arbitral award,...

What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling distils several concrete lessons for practice. It emphasises the strict procedural framework for annulment. Within the statutory window—five months for foreign parties and three months for others, typically with the first appeal submissions—applicants must pinpoint the exact operative heads (‘chefs décisoires’) they contest. Broad, catch‑all wording will not suffice, and any later effort to widen the challenge will be ruled inadmissible. Practitioners should therefore front‑load their case and draft with rigour from the outset of the appeal. The court also confirms the narrow reach of review under Article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP). Allegations of due process breaches, excess of mandate, or infringement of international public policy will not succeed where they merely repackage disagreements with the tribunal’s contractual...

RA, SA and GA v Federatie Der Belgische Diamantbeurzen vzw ECLI: BE: CASS:2025: CONC.20251127.1N.9 What are the practical implications of this case? In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that Belgian civil courts lack power to issue anti-arbitration injunctions. Accordingly, any party disputing the tribunal’s competence must do so promptly within the arbitration. The tribunal will then independently determine its jurisdiction, covering the existence, validity, and breadth of the arbitration clause. Belgian courts, even when asked for interim or protective relief or faced with claims on the merits, cannot halt or discontinue pending arbitrations. At the post-award phase, if properly seized, they may annul or deny recognition and enforcement of an award where the arbitration agreement is shown to be void. What was the background? The claimants were, until December 2022, members of one of the diamond bourses within the Federation of Belgian Diamond Bourses ( FBDB). On 26 July...

Disclosure of confidential arbitration documents to facilitate policing of an undertaking ( Bourlakova & others v Edelweiss Investments Inv) (1) Loudmila Bourlakova (2) Hermitage One Limited (3) Greenbay Invest Holdings Limited (4) Veronica Bourlakova claimants-and-(1) The Estate of Oleg Bourlakov & others (12) Edelweiss Investments Inc defendants [2025] EWHC 3085 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores (i) the English court’s clear readiness to issue directions that give practical and effective effect to freezing relief or agreed undertakings, even where doing so requires disclosure that encroaches on arbitral confidentiality; and (ii) that, where a party seeks to rely on confidentiality to oppose a disclosure application, it is essential to put forward cogent and specific evidence addressing whether there is a genuine risk of criminal prosecution. What was the...

With political and legal backdrops across key jurisdictions in flux, parties to international arbitration are choosing their seats with ever greater care, while calibrating risk accordingly. As these shifts recast procedural expectations, both parties and practitioners sensibly regard the seat named in arbitration clauses as a pivotal choice, shaped by evolving political conditions and factors such as legal certainty and stability, and perceived neutrality. Indeed, selecting the arbitral seat is among the most consequential decisions when drafting agreements, given its far‑reaching effects for the process and outcome. Chief among those effects are identifying the applicable lex arbitri (which governs procedure) and determining which courts of the chosen seat will aid enforcement of the arbitration agreement and hear any annulment, or set‑aside, proceedings once an award has issued. Several global developments are poised to influence selections of arbitral seats in 2026, including Mexico’s...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Sector and industry-specific arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New and updated content Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court rejects AA 1996, s 67 challenge, tribunal has jurisdiction over shipbuilding warranty disputes In MS ‘ V1’ Gmb H & Co KG and another v SY Co Ltd [2026] EWHC 52 ( Comm), the Commercial Court refused the claimants’ AA 1996, s 67 application, upholding two final declaratory awards that had found the arbitral tribunal possessed jurisdiction over a dispute centred on exclusion clauses in shipbuilding agreements. The matter concerned a pair of shipbuilding contracts containing an arbitration clause; the claimants acquired vessels with assigned warranty guarantees and subsequently discovered asbestos on board. The...

LLC Eurochem North‑ West‑2 v Techimont SPA & others [2026] EWCA Civ 5 What are the practical implications of the case? In the wake of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, it is apparent that the English courts will readily uphold peremptory directions issued by an arbitral tribunal or an emergency arbitrator, including peremptory directions granting anti‑suit relief under AA 1996, s 42. The decision provides a stark caution to parties who elect to step away from arbitration (despite being party to an arbitration agreement) and instead advance parallel proceedings before foreign courts. Although outcomes remain fact‑specific, the Court of Appeal’s judgment confirms that the English courts possess the power to enforce anti‑suit relief ordered by arbitration tribunals. What was the background? The context to this dispute is lengthy yet significant and important to understand in full......

Kat Yue Construction Engineering v Fai Lee Construction ( H. K.) Ltd, HCA 2494/2024, [2026] HKCFI 408 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers practical direction on how the Hong Kong court handles the relationship between arbitration clauses in primary contracts and settlement agreements that expressly remove them. The ‘centre of gravity’ approach: Where linked agreements contain inconsistent dispute resolution terms, the court identifies the essence of the claim and selects the agreement most closely tied to the controversy. That agreement’s dispute resolution mechanism will govern—even if another contract still has relevance. Respect for express exclusions: The court will not stretch to fit disputes within an arbitration clause where the parties have clearly agreed otherwise. Readings that would render an express exclusion clause redundant should be avoided. Avoiding fragmentation: Courts are slow to endorse...

Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd v Holbud Ltd [2025] EWHC 3187 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling serves as a practical touchstone for advisers handling commodity sale claims and GAFTA arbitrations. It underscores strict observance of the GAFTA 49 machinery, with particular focus on vessel nomination and any swap under Clause 6. The court applied a narrow reading to substitution, tied to the contractual ETA and the agreed delivery period, and dismissed the contention that a replacement ship might be put forward at will beyond the Contract’s parameters. Accordingly, any attempted nomination outside the ETA or delivery period fell foul of the bargain. For arbitration specialists, the message is to advance your entire legal and evidential case before the tribunal, and seek explicit determinations on all material issues. In this matter, Holbud sought to invoke...

2026 international arbitration trends M& A and securities disputes Settling M& A and securities conflicts is becoming ever more intricate, notably in cross-border deals and joint ventures that bring multiple stakeholders to the table. Global M& A volumes rose by 10% in the first nine months of 2025 versus the same period in 2024, underscoring the continued rise of high-profile mergers and acquisitions. As transaction values and strategic stakes climb, so too does the scope for contention around contractual terms, including rights of first refusal ( ROFR) and change of control clauses. High-profile arbitration among Exxon Mobil Corp, Hess Corp, Chevron Corp and China National Offshore Oil Corp ( CNOOC) concerning a joint operating agreement Adjustments by the US Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC) to its long-standing opposition to mandatory arbitration clauses in public company registration...

That urgency is visible both in evolving best practice—like adding AI clauses to terms of reference and procedural orders—as well as in the first tranche of objections claiming improper dependence on AI. A 9 December 2025 ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of California, Lapaglia v Valve, 3:25-cv-00833, shows how even untested assertions that an arbitrator ‘ghostwrote’ an award with AI can bleed into collateral litigation, trigger due process worries, and pose reputational exposure. It is an early warning that clearly underscores the pressing need for explicit AI protocols, human‑in‑the‑loop safeguards, and transparent disclosures aligned with party expectations and applicable law. This article summarises Lapaglia v Valve and distils practical guidance from earlier, closely analogous practice on tribunal delegation and nascent generative AI recommendations, setting out a clear, forward‑looking framework for what tribunals and counsel should...

V Ships Ltd v Luna Management Corporation [2025] EWHC 3329 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries significant practical weight for arbitration practitioners advising on the fallout of an anti‑suit injunction in the English courts. It clarifies how the court will respond when its support for arbitration is ignored. The court confirmed that contempt proceedings are an effective and powerful means of enforcement when a party intentionally disobeys orders made to support arbitration, operating as a credible sanction. Though contempt is not commonly invoked, the court indicated that sustained, flagrant, or cynical breaches will justify deploying it. The case also makes plain that company structure will not protect those who truly direct non‑compliance. The court was prepared to hold an individual in contempt who was not a formal director but acted as the company’s...

P v Shift Energy Asia Ltd [2025] HKCFI 6415 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is another Hong Kong authority treating Re Guy Lam as prevailing over Sian Participation. When faced with submissions on whether an arbitration clause was valid, the court looked to jurisprudence on Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. It determined that the party relying on the arbitration agreement must show, on a prima facie basis, that it has binding effect. The court also indicated that the persuasiveness of that showing feeds into the court’s multi-factorial discretion in the winding-up arena and context overall......

Sucafina NA Inc v Green Coffee Company Holdings LLC Case No 1:2025cv05752 What are the practical implications of the case? While arbitration is rooted in party consent, courts have acknowledged limited scenarios in which a non-signatory can nevertheless be bound. This ruling offers guidance on that issue and practical direction for parent companies seeking to avoid arbitration without a signature. The court accepted GCC’s broader contention that corporate affiliation alone does not establish an agency relationship between parent and subsidiary. Yet it determined that the record showed affirmative signals by GCC sufficient to create a reasonable belief, on Sucafina’s side, that Agrosura acted with GCC’s authority. In particular, the court noted that: Negotiations proceeded via GCC-branded communication channels; The contractual documents were expressly contingent on GCC’s confirmation; and Sucafina received financial information pertaining to both...

What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling has meaningful consequences for advisers working on intra‑ EU investment disputes and on enforcement tactics. Strategic seat selection: The judgment confirms that choosing a seat outside the EU—most notably Singapore—can shield ECT arbitrations from intra‑ EU objections grounded in Achmea and Komstroy. Although those CJEU authorities expose intra‑ EU awards to challenge within the Union, they do not impugn the validity of such awards in jurisdictions beyond the EU framework. Seat selection is therefore a critical strategic choice from the outset of any intra‑ EU investor‑ State dispute. Enforcement planning: Award creditors should look to enforce in non‑ EU courts that are not bound by EU law doctrines. The SICC’s firm rejection of the intra‑ EU objection outlines a clear path to enforcement outside the EU, offering a practical...

Counsel for Nigeria told the Court of Appeal that a group of companies and individuals associated with the alternative asset manager VR Capital Group backed the efforts of Process & Industrial Developments Ltd ( P& ID) to enforce an US$11bn award obtained by fraud. Tom Ford of Essex Court Chambers argued the earlier judge erred in pausing Nigeria’s third-party costs bid against the VR Capital parties until P& ID failed to pay after a final assessment of the bill. He said P& ID has to date settled only £23.7m of the sums owed, and that came only following delays and threats that it would be debarred from defending the case. He added P& ID lacks assets to satisfy any ultimate costs order, and ‘there is every likelihood here of non-payment at the end of detailed assessment’. Ford said the VR Capital parties could have...

Senate Bill 574 ( SB 574) The measure, titled Senate Bill 574 ( SB 574), would oblige lawyers to take 'reasonable steps' to verify the accuracy of AI-generated material. Drafted by state Senator Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Orange County, he said in a statement that it forms part of a broader package, describing it as 'about accountability, fairness, and making sure Californians are protected as our systems and technologies change'. A former prosecutor, Umberg now practises as a trial lawyer and name partner at Umberg Zipser LLP, and also currently chairs the California Senate Judiciary Committee. Umberg unveiled the bill package on 8 January 2026, after he submitted it on 5 January 2026. ' Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the US', Umberg wrote in remarks submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. ' Its...