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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Court powers under section 44 Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 empowers the Court, in certain situations, to make orders that support an arbitration. The powers set out at s 44(2)(a)–(e) comprise: (a) taking witness evidence; (b) preservation of evidence; (c) making orders about property that is the subject of the proceedings or in respect of which a question arises, including: (i) inspection, photography, preservation, custody or detention; (ii) taking samples, making observations or conducting experiments and, for that purpose, authorising entry to premises in the possession or control of a party to the arbitration; (d) selling goods that are the subject of the proceedings; (e) granting interim injunctions or appointing a...
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 Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Functus officio revisited: arbitral correction decisions as evidence in section 68 AA 1996 challenges What weight attaches to a tribunal’s refusal to correct an award? In Seacrest v BCP [2025] EWHC 3266 ( Comm), the court grappled with this point when faced with an application to set aside for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). The claimant, Seacrest Group Ltd (‘ Seacrest’), maintained that the tribunal breached due process in its award in an arbitration between Seacrest and the defendants, BCPR PTE Ltd and Bangchak Corporation Public Company Ltd...
Soremi Investments Ltd v China National Gold Group HK Ltd & Another [2025] HKCFI 6417 What are the practical implications of this case? The leave ruling (and the earlier denial of a stay) serves as a reminder that a ‘one‑stop’ route to arbitration is not guaranteed, even if a clause adopts the familiar ‘arising out of or relating to’ wording and expressly captures non‑contractual duties. For deal lawyers preparing shareholder frameworks, the takeaway is to match the dispute‑resolution provision to the risk landscape. If the parties aim to arbitrate company‑level claims (asset misappropriation, breaches of directors’ duties, dishonest assistance or conspiracy), adding ‘tort‑inclusive’ wording will not suffice. The provision must be crafted (and the deal structured) so these disputes are properly characterised as arising from the relationship formed by the shareholders’ agreement (or otherwise linked to the company and its...
Remedies against Swiss awards must be sought proactively and swiftly (État A v B & C) État A v B & C 4A_412/2025 A party dissatisfied with a Swiss international arbitral award may seek to have it set aside by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in accordance with Article 190 of the Swiss Private International Law Act ( PILA). The decision confirms that parties must act both promptly and proactively when pursuing such relief. In particular, the application to set aside must be lodged within 30 days of the award’s ‘communication’ under Article 190(4) PILA. For an award to be deemed ‘communicated’, it is essentially enough that the party becomes aware of it, even informally. Where a party believes the award was not served in line with the applicable rules, meaning it was not validly ‘notified’, the defect must be raised without delay to allow a...
Seacrest Group Ltd (in provisional liquidation in Bermuda) v BCPR PTE Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 3266 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Once an arbitral Tribunal has delivered its award, it becomes functus officio: subject only to very limited exceptions, it lacks any ongoing power to make further determinations about the dispute. The parties’ submissions in this matter considered how that principle applies where a party seeks a correction to an award. Consistent with AA 1996, s 57 and many other arbitration rules, article 38 of the UNCITRAL Rules sets a short timeframe within which a party may request, or the tribunal may on its own initiative make, a correction to an award. The scope is tightly defined: any correction must concern an error in computation, a clerical or typographical slip, or an error or omission of a similar kind. The...
2025 yielded abundant SFT rulings on the reach of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ( CAS) authority. Through two significant decisions, the SFT refined and reaffirmed how the arbitration pact operates in favour of the FIFA tribunal when set against state courts. Thus, under Article 22, para 1 (b) RSTP, FIFA’s competence is default for disputes of international dimension, yet not exclusive; parties may validly opt out or bring claims before national courts for this specific class of labour-law matters (see my notes on 4A_64/2025 and 4A_92/2025). The SFT likewise set out the admissibility bar for its scrutiny of FIFA’s jurisdiction (see my note on 4A_12/2025): the issue must be ventilated during CAS proceedings, although an explicit objection at the very start of the FIFA phase is not required (see my note on 4A_92/2025)......
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 Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Diverging paths? English courts restrict assignment of ICSID awards in contrast to other major enforcement venues On 10 November 2025, the High Court of England and Wales issued a notable ruling in Opera Fund Eco- Invest & Schwab Holding v Spain [2025] EWHC 2874 ( Comm), determining that an ICSID award made under the Energy Charter Treaty ( ECT) is not capable of assignment to third parties. This new approach to assignability may add further complexity to the enforcement of ICSID awards in England—a forum that has been receptive to ICSID enforcement (including proceedings against Spain)—and could influence the secondary market for investing in the recovery of arbitral awards. In this news...
Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC et al The US Supreme Court is poised in 2026 to decide whether to revisit the DC Circuit’s August 2024 ruling, which opened the door to enforcing roughly US$419m in arbitral awards in favour of renewable energy investors against Spain. In October 2025, the justices signalled interest, asking US Solicitor General D John Sauer to submit a brief setting out the Trump administration’s views. In the decision at issue, the DC Circuit concluded that the awards to US-based Next Era Energy Inc and Luxembourg-based 9REN Holding SARL—€290m and €41m, respectively—are enforceable even though they are treated as invalid under EU law. The decision also related to a €26.5m award to AES Solar Energy Coöperatief UA and Ampere Equity Fund BV that was later assigned to Blasket Renewable Investments LLC. Spain contends before the Supreme Court that a split...
Riyadh International Disputes Week 2026 ( RIDW26) takes place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 1 and 5 February 2026. The event will be...
We extend our thanks to the following individuals for contributing their insights on this key issue: Omer Er, Partner, Michelman & Robinson, New York Antoine KF Smiley, Partner, Reed Smith, Austin, Texas Eugenie Rogers, Partner, Reed Smith, Dallas Lisa Richman, Partner, Mc Dermott Will & Emery, Washington, DC Jessica Sabbath, Counsel, Mc Dermott Will & Emery, Atlanta Daniel R Guadalupe, Partner, Pashman Stein Walder Hayden PC, Hackensack, NJ Albert Bates Jr, Partner, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Pittsburgh R Zachary Torres- Fowler, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Locke LLP, Philadelphia and New York Andrew Drennan, Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal’s Disputes and Investigations, London J Laurens Wilkes, Partner and Chair of Infrastructure & Projects – Global Disputes, Winston & Strawn, Houston Gustavo J Membiela, Partner, Winston & Strawn, Miami Madison K Haueisen, Associate, Winston & Strawn, Houston Mealey’s: What are your views on the legal, ethical and practical implications of the AAA- ICDR announcing the launch of an AI...
What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries significant practical weight for arbitration specialists, particularly in international arbitrations seated in Switzerland. To begin with, it reaffirms that reopening arbitral awards on the basis of taint by criminal wrongdoing remains a rarity under Swiss law. Even though Article 190a PILA now expressly codifies the ground for revision, the Swiss Federal Tribunal applies it sparingly. As such, this matter is among the exceptional cases where a Swiss-seated award was annulled because criminal offences were found to have directly shaped the result. Moreover, the judgment underscores the pivotal evidential function of criminal proceedings. The Federal Tribunal drew heavily on the final determinations of the Swiss criminal courts, which definitively established document forgery and procedural fraud. For practitioners, this indicates that a petition under Article 190a(1)(b) PILA will typically prevail only where criminal...
Background The dispute stems from one of many ICSID claims brought by investors in Spain’s renewables industry after adverse revisions to the nation’s electricity remuneration scheme in the early 2010s. In 2019, an ICSID ( ECT) tribunal ordered approximately EUR 30 million to be paid in favour of the claimants. That award was subsequently upheld in ICSID annulment proceedings, and the claimants then moved to enforce it in multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and Switzerland. The initial award creditors later transferred their rights under the award to an investment vehicle, Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, which sought to be substituted for them in the English enforcement proceedings. Spain objected to the transfer, maintaining that awards of this kind are non-assignable under the ICSID Convention. Concurrently, Spain applied to set aside the original registration of the award on the basis of sovereign immunity. The High Court did not...
The award directed Malaysia to pay over US$14.9 billion to the purported descendants of the former Sultan of Sulu, stemming from an 1878 pact concerning the northern reaches of Borneo. Scarcely any modern arbitral decisions have drawn comparable scrutiny, whether due to the magnitude of the sum or the antique provenance of the instrument invoked to ground jurisdiction. The ruling sits at the crossroads of bedrock themes in international arbitration: the necessity of sovereign consent, the legal ramifications of procedural flaws in the formation of arbitral tribunals, and the continuing oversight exercised by domestic courts. While French arbitration law is often seen as exceptionally supportive of arbitral independence, the Court of Appeal confirmed that such deference is neither unconditional nor oblivious to defects that strike at the legitimacy of the process, and it did so strictly within the confines of annulment review...
Ruling upholds US$11m arbitration award, offers D& O lessons Although the court’s remit was narrow—confirming a US$10.96m award for the policyholder—the judgment sets out clear expectations on how insurers and policyholders should tackle allocation disputes, how widely choice-of-law and insurability provisions can operate, and the uphill task insurers face when seeking to overturn an unfavourable arbitration result. For policyholders, it serves as a practical blueprint for advancing allocation and insurability positions in complex, multi-defendant matters. For insurers, it signals that speculative allocation theories, inflexible readings of best-efforts duties, and forceful bids to unwind arbitral outcomes are unlikely to gain traction. The arbitration arose from a high-stakes trade secrets and fiduciary duty case that Flextronics resolved for more than US$42m. Allianz resisted payment on its excess layer and pursued a multi-pronged challenge: contesting allocation, resisting the application of favourable insurability law, alleging the...
Al- Shiddi International d.o.o. v BN Step d.o.o. , Case No 65 0 Ps 1012588 25 Rev What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers valuable guidance to legal practitioners, particularly within arbitration practice. The central message is a clear judicial preference to read ambiguous arbitration provisions in a manner that preserves their effectiveness. Reflecting the stance of the FBi H Supreme Court, even a loosely formulated arbitration pact should be preserved where the parties’ intention points to arbitration as the chosen forum, and courts ought to prioritise enforceability by giving effect to that intent, especially where the contract reveals a distinct preference for arbitral resolution. In this dispute, the court upheld the clause’s validity and confirmed the jurisdiction of the arbitral process, including the Arbitration Court at the Foreign Trade Chamber of Bi H, despite an imprecise reference to...
In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Institutional and Ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Sector- and industry-specific arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts Updated Practice Notes Useful information Highlights 2025/2026 Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court rejects AA 1996, s 68 bid on exchange rates and UNCITRAL Article 38 correction application In Seacrest Group v BCPR PTE [2025] EWHC 3266 ( Comm), the Commercial Court ( Trower J) refused Seacrest’s challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996) to a final award dated 27 September 2024, made in an arbitration conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2021. The challenge advanced two grounds: (i) an alleged serious procedural irregularity within AA 1996, s 68(2)(a), said to arise from the tribunal’s failure to engage with...
Many third-party litigation funding agreements ( LFAs) were left unenforceable after Britain’s top court categorised them as damages-based agreements in 2023. LFAs are barred from use in opt-out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT), a forum that has seen rising popularity over the past decade. The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has now said it will adopt Civil Justice Council ( CJC) recommendations to undo the effects of the PACCAR decision, following its review of the litigation funding market. The announcement characterised the PACCAR outcome as restricting claimants’ access to third-party finance, leading to fewer collective proceedings being issued in the CAT. According to the government, the proposed steps will restore certainty to the litigation funding arena in the wake of PACCAR, bringing steadier conditions to the market overall, and ‘will mean......
M/s Nambale Enterprises Ltd v Adjumani District Local Government and Kom Consults Ltd , ( Miscellaneous Application No 202 of 2025) [2025] UGComm C 443 (4 December 2025) What are the practical implications of this case? Following this ruling, it can be argued—though not definitively settled—that a party seeking to set aside an award may request an extension of the one‑month period if, on a prima facie basis, there is a serious ground for challenge and the interests of justice call for additional time. Examples of potentially serious grounds include: the applicant was not a party to the arbitration agreement; or the award was obtained by fraud. Nevertheless, prospective applicants should also give a credible explanation for any delay in filing, in addition to showing a prima facie serious basis for setting aside that justifies extra time in the interests of justice......
DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment clarifies what “matters” means in Article 5 of the Model Law, which is incorporated into Singapore law by section 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 ( IAA). Article 5 provides: “ In matters governed by the Model Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in the Model Law.” The effect is that Singapore courts lack authority, under Article 5, to intrude upon procedural decisions of an arbitral institution that do not impede the progress or conduct of an arbitration. Although a registrar (or equivalent position) of an arbitral institution is not a member of the tribunal tasked with resolving the parties’ substantive dispute, that point concerns only the consequence of the procedural step. Where parties have adopted institutional rules in their arbitration agreement, and those rules...
Eurochem North- West-2 LLC v LLC ‘ MT Russia’ and Tecnimont Sp A A40-231304/2025 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling, in effect, allows Russian courts to add a party to ongoing proceedings with no immediate right of appeal. The added party is unable to contest the joinder at the outset and must defer any challenge to its lawfulness until the final judgment. In practice, this is a ‘joinder by force’: the party must either commit time and expense to participate (which may prove needless if its objections to joinder are strong, yet remains burdensome), or stand aside and wait to raise those objections after judgment. However, non-participation almost certainly invites a substantive decision against the joined party—one it should not have been compelled to face had an appeal against the joinder been available. It is another...
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
