Legal News

A30 & others v E30 & others [2025] ADGMCA 0003 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is notable for arbitration practitioners in ADGM and users of the LCIA Rules, as it settles an enduring friction between contractual arbitration rules and the court’s supervisory role at the seat, for three reasons. First, it sets a definitive hierarchy: for ADGM-seated arbitrations, the peremptory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015—most importantly section 31 on interim measures—take precedence over restrictive institutional rules. Practitioners may now apply to the ADGM Court for urgent without-notice freezing orders even after a tribunal has been constituted, without concern that omitting prior tribunal authorisation under LCIA Rule 25.3 will be treated as a breach. The Court confirmed that a tribunal’s inability to grant without-notice relief means it is “for the time being unable to act...

What are the practical implications of this case? Creditors across Commonwealth systems—especially in the UK—may now opt, with assurance, for either of two distinct routes: enforcing an arbitral award directly under the AA (ss 38–39) or registering a court confirmation of the award under the REJA 1958. Selecting the REJA 1958 pathway does not widen the avenues of attack when compared with the AA: section 5 sets out six grounds that replicate Article V defences under the New York Convention, whilst sidestepping the full AA ss 37–39 machinery. For litigators, an application under the REJA 1958 will not engage the AA’s complete review regime; it proceeds on its statutory footing. Courts will not import AA provisions into REJA 1958 proceedings. Section 5’s six defences remain the sole bases to set aside, yet they can extend to scrutiny of the underlying arbitral award, and not merely the...

Chevron Corporation, et al v The Republic of Ecuador, No 2009-23, PCA Fourth partial award accessible. Document 05-251223-042A. Partial dissent accessible. Document 05-251223-043Z. The tribunal’s award, running to over 1,000 pages, was dated 17 November and made public online on 9 December. The panel consisted of Professor Albert Jan van den Berg as president, Dr Horacio A. Grigera Naón, appointed by the US claimants Chevron Corp. and Texaco Petroleum Co., and Professor Vaughan Lowe KC, appointed by Ecuador. Rainforest drilling In 1993, a number of Ecuadorian residents brought proceedings against Texaco Inc. and its subsidiary Texaco Petroleum Co. ( Tex Pet) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking compensation for pollution in the Oriente area of the Amazon rainforest. They alleged the contamination stemmed from oil operations conducted between 1964 and 1992. The case was dismissed on forum non...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Further arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court clarifies contract wrongful force majeure declaration, AA 1996 s 69 The King’s Bench Division ( Commercial Court) considered an appeal under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 from GAFTA Board of Appeal Award No. 4702, initiated by Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd. The dispute arose from a sale contract for yellow corn to ship from Ukraine or Romania, where Olam improperly invoked force majeure after Russia’s invasion led to the closure of Ukrainian ports. The court addressed two issues of law: (1) whether a non‑defaulting party must establish that it could have performed its own obligations in order to obtain substantial damages when the counterparty has wrongly relied on force majeure; and (2)...

Trend 1: new participants, different challenges Private investment in infrastructure—most notably in renewables—continues to grow worldwide. IJGlobal reports that infrastructure funds secured almost US$112.05bn in H1 2025, up from US$57.85bn in H1 2024. As funds widen their exposure to infrastructure assets, their presence in construction arbitrations is also increasing. This shift in the make-up of project participants is giving rise to fresh procedural and practical issues: Conflicting approaches to contractor claims and arbitration strategy— Infrastructure funds typically inject finance in exchange for equity in the project company, and their engagement is often fixed and relatively short-term compared with traditional developers or owners who tend to remain involved for the long term. This shapes their stance on contractor claims for extensions of time ( EOT) or additional cost, usually prioritising the strongest financial result within the existing project framework. Where a project has...

This signals a significant shift in US securities regulation and practice at a pivotal moment in securities law. It opens the door for listed businesses to implement arbitration frameworks the SEC now deems lawful under the Federal Arbitration Act, provided those terms are clearly disclosed. Concurrently, the move rekindles enduring disputes about investor protections, transparency and access to the courts. Brazil’s twenty years of weaving arbitration into its capital markets, in our view, offer a practical template for the SEC to consider, drawing on sustained experience. Where the US stands after the SEC shift While never enshrined by formal rule, SEC staff followed a long-standing practice of refusing to accelerate registration statements that contained mandatory arbitration terms when presented by issuers, a stance applied over many years. They defended this stance on investor-protection grounds, warning that such clauses might curtail shareholder rights under the federal...

What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling has significant consequences for practitioners involved in international sales, commodity trading and arbitration. The Court of Appeal held that, when several arbitration clauses appear across different layers of contractual paperwork, the clause contained in the conditions particulières—in this instance, the broker’s pre-printed CAIP wording—takes priority over any arbitration clause found in incorporated industry-standard terms, as it serves as an express contrary agreement to those general conditions. The Paris Court of Appeal reiterates a fundamental principle of French international arbitration: the parties’ shared intention governs, identified through objective indicators of consent, including consistent acceptance and execution of broker-issued confirmations. On procedure, the decision shows that French courts apply a stringent review of jurisdiction under Article 1520(1) CPC, while consciously avoiding any reconsideration of the merits. It further clarifies that mere references to commonly used trade terms (such as...

On 1 December 2025, US District Judge Dale E. Ho ruled that arbitrator Tina Cicchetti had indeed considered the contested materials: an expert analysis of Mauritian anti-money laundering legislation and evidence that the project counterparty, Vision Indian Ocean SA, had purportedly removed Symbion from project management. Judge Ho observed that Symbion and RW Chelsea effectively conceded this by pointing to portions of the award where Cicchetti recognised both categories of evidence. A Symbion spokesperson said RW Chelsea, previously Symbian Energy Holdings Ltd, has exited its investment in Symbion and agreed to indemnify it in relation to the arbitral award. The spokesperson added that Symbion no longer has any involvement with the Mandroseza Power plant. Symbion and RW Chelsea further alleged misconduct by Cicchetti for rejecting their contention that Vision Indian Ocean had mounted 'abusive' proceedings before a Malagasy...

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 London court refuses bid to stay Unicredit’s Russian arbitration The King’s Bench Division ( Commercial Court) refused the claimant/applicant’s request for an anti-suit injunction against the first and second defendants/respondents ( AO and SPA), which aimed to bar Moscow proceedings and channel the quarrel to arbitration in Vienna. The court held there was no strong likelihood the Moscow case infringed the arbitration pact, because the Mortgage Agreement jurisdiction clause governed disputes concerning Events of Default. It also declined to issue an anti-suit order on the footing that the Moscow action was vexatious or oppressive, concluding there was an insufficient English judicial interest in a quarrel about Russian property between a Russian bank and a...

On 25 November 2025, High Court judge Andrew Henshaw determined that the English court lacks a sufficient stake in FH Holding Moscow Ltd’s bid for an anti‑suit injunction aimed at restraining AO Uni Credit Bank from advancing its claim over real‑estate assets. The bank says those properties were pledged as collateral for facilities on which FH Holding has now fallen into default. Henshaw noted that granting relief would bar AO Uni Credit, a Russian entity, from continuing proceedings against FH Holding — a Russian property owner that is a Cypriot tax resident but conducts business solely in Russia. The court considered the nexus with the Russian courts to be compelling, while any legitimate English interest was slight, and concluded it would not be just or convenient to issue the injunction. The dispute arises from borrowing under a November 2018 loan...

In this edition: Institutional and ad hoc arbitration International Arbitration Further arbitration and ADR-related news and developments News alerts issued daily and weekly Updated and new content Useful information Institutional and ad hoc arbitration AAA— AI-led arbitration rules for two-party disputes introduced The American Arbitration Association ( AAA) has unveiled AI‑ Led Arbitration Rules, creating a hybrid approach where an AI arbitrator issues preliminary determinations that human arbitrators review and finalise. These rules cover two‑party disputes managed via AAA’s Digital Dispute Resolution Centre platform, with filing fees of US$2,500 per claim or counterclaim and a ten business‑day timetable per stage. See: LNB News 24/11/2025 47. SIAC— Mo U with Chongqing Arbitration Commission signed The Singapore International Arbitration Centre ( SIAC) and the Chongqing Arbitration Commission ( CQAC) have entered into a Memorandum of...

ING Bank NV v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd Civil Appeal No. 02(i)-19-06-2024( W) What are the practical implications of this case? This Federal Court ruling carries notable procedural and substantive consequences for arbitration and commercial litigation practitioners. It confirms that an award creditor holding a foreign arbitral award from a reciprocating country (such as the UK) enjoys a strategic election between: enforcing the award directly under the AA 2005; or obtaining a ‘confirmation judgment’ at the seat and enforcing that judgment via the REJA 1958. The court found that REJA and the AA are distinct, self-contained regimes; the AA does not supersede or displace REJA. This settles that taking the REJA pathway is a legitimate statutory route, not any species of ‘judgment laundering’. The decision has immediate consequences for client strategy: advisers to award creditors may now treat the REJA course as a viable, and...

NTG Multimodal Gmb H/ If Skadeförsäkring AB, case numbers T 13423-24 and T 1729-25 What are the practical implications of this case? This case spells out how unambiguous an arbitration clause needs to be where the contract sits under the CMR. Accordingly, the ruling matters for businesses that have entered, or plan to enter, CMR-governed contracts and wish to incorporate arbitration terms. To meet the Convention’s requirements of certainty and foreseeability, the agreement must direct the tribunal to apply the Convention itself. The judgment also underscores the significant burden of proof on a party claiming the counterparty has ratified or entered into a new arbitration agreement. In this case, NTG recognised the clause’s validity in a different forum and for other claims. The court observed that NTG’s pleadings abroad could be read as indicating that, in NTG’s view, all claims between the parties fell within...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Stay of proceedings under AA 1996, s 9 where existence of arbitration agreement is disputed The King’s Bench Division dismissed three applications by the claimants ( Orange Transgroup Ltd and IT Way) while granting interim stays in favour of the defendant, Shein Distribution UK Limited. The principal issues were whether the defendant had submitted to the High Court’s jurisdiction by not filing a Part 11 application, whether an arbitration agreement existed between Orange and Shein, and which tribunal should decide that issue. The court held a Part 11 application was unnecessary, as the defendant had duly applied for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 following CPR Part 62. It further determined that the question of Bill’s...

Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company ( Power Machines— ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomacgexport) [2025] SGCA 50 What was the background? The dispute stemmed from a Vietnamese thermal power plant project between Vietnam Oil and Gas Group ( PVN), as owner, and Joint Stock Company ( Power Machines- ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) ( PM), a contractor consortium member. In 2013, PVN and PM signed an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract governed by Vietnamese law, with arbitration in Singapore under the SIAC Rules. The contract permitted termination for non-payment persisting beyond 150 days ( Clause 16.2(b)) or where force majeure halted work for more than 84 days ( Clause 19.6). In January 2018, PM was added to the US Office for Foreign Assets Control sanctions list, which impeded subcontractor performance. PM subsequently issued: a First Notice in January 2019...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement ( JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC- LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA,...

China Railway 18th Bureau ( Group) Co Ltd v Tumo Technical Services Ltd , Miscellaneous Cause No 72 of 2025) [2025] UGComm C 393 (23 October 2025) What are the practical implications of this case? Beyond restating that prior arbitral awards carry res judicata consequences for later arbitrations, the ruling makes two key points. First, for arbitration seated in Uganda, the operative res judicata standard mirrors that used in ordinary court proceedings. Secondly, where a setting-aside application targets the tribunal’s ruling on a res judicata objection, that ruling will only be overturned if shown to be perverse or anchored on incorrect propositions of law. Practitioners should keep this firmly in mind and evaluate the res judicata reach of any earlier awards using the proper test: demonstrating that the claim or issue has already been heard and conclusively determined by a competent court or...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Commercial Court rules assignment of award ineffective for ICSID arbitration award In Operafund Eco- Invest v The Kingdom of Spain, the Commercial Court refused an application by the claimants together with Blasket Renewable Investments LLC to substitute Blasket for the claimants in proceedings aimed at registering an arbitration award made in the claimants’ favour against Spain under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 ( ICSID Convention). The court determined that ICSID Convention arbitration awards are not capable of assignment, as a matter of interpretation of the ICSID Convention read alongside the Energy Charter Treaty 1994. The court further rejected the claimants’ case that Spain was estopped from...

In a globalised marketplace, conflicts in cross-border commerce are unavoidable. Traditionally, parties turned to international arbitration to settle such matters. They did so to steer clear of domestic courts seen as slow or partial. Yet arbitration brings drawbacks: fewer procedural protections, opaque processes, and patchy enforcement, which reduce trust and certainty. Hence the spread of international commercial courts ( ICCs) — a new breed of national courts tailored for cross-border cases, engineered for transnational disputes ( Gu & Tam, 2022, p. 445). Built to fuse the advantages of litigation and arbitration, ICCs are rapidly emerging as the favoured fora for intricate financial claims. This shift poses a key question: can judges drawn from disparate legal traditions produce outcomes that are consistent, fair, and predictable without common training? Judicial capability underpins confidence, and as ICCs expand in number, scale, and stature, a lack of...

CI v IU [2025] HKCFI 4397 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the stringent bar for obtaining leave to appeal under sections 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the AO, reinforcing the Hong Kong court’s arbitration-friendly stance. More importantly, it delivers long-anticipated guidance on whether the court’s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a ‘question of law’ is restricted to Hong Kong law issues. Unlike the English regime, which expressly confines a ‘question of law’ to ‘a question of the law of England and Wales’, the Hong Kong court, albeit in obiter, adopted a broader and adaptable outlook here. Advancing a spectrum concept, the court differentiated between genuinely ‘exotic’ governing laws and foreign laws that closely resemble Hong Kong law (as in this dispute). How the Hong Kong courts will approach a question of law rooted in a...