Legal News

Hyalroute Communication Group Ltd v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ( Asia) Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2417 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®UK) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision marks the first occasion on which the Hong Kong court was invited to curb winding-up steps pursued in a separate common law forum in deference to Hong Kong arbitration. The application emerged against the backdrop of the contrasting lines taken by the Hong Kong Courts and the Privy Council when considering stays of winding-up proceedings, as reflected in Re Guy Lam (2023) 26 HKCFAR 119 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®UK) and Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16. In this dispute, the court’s analysis centred on how the arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying contract ought properly to be interpreted. Ultimately, the court concluded that presenting a winding-up petition in the Cayman...

International arbitration In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Hall, Moser & Wade: International Arbitration Handbook Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Australia— Enforcement of ICSID Awards and State Immunity In Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028, the Federal Court of Australia assessed Spain’s claim to sovereign immunity in proceedings to recognise and enforce intra‑ EU International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes awards. Spain argued the awards were not binding or enforceable as EU law bars intra‑ EU investment arbitration. The court rejected this, ruling the awards are binding under Article 53 of the ICSID Convention and enforceable in Australia under Article 54, as Spain, by entering the Convention, consented to enforcement...

Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries notable weight for the enforcement of intra‑ EU ICSID awards against foreign states in Australia, and more widely in courts outside the EU. It strengthens the accumulating judicial view that ICSID awards cannot be subjected to collateral attacks at the enforcement stage, especially where sovereign immunity is pleaded. As the ICSID Convention—unlike the New York Convention—constitutes a self‑contained framework, challenges to awards must be pursued solely within its own mechanisms. The Court also clarified that EU law arguments, including the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decisions in Republic v Achmea BV [2018] 4 WLR 87 ( Achmea) and Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC [2021] 4 WLR 132 ( Komstroy), which found intra‑ EU...

Marseille- Kliniken AG v Republic of Equatorial Guinea — US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No 23-7169 What was the background? Swiss healthcare group Marseille- Kliniken AG entered a 2009 agreement with Equatorial Guinea to upgrade and run a clinic. The dispute clause, written in Spanish and German, pointed both to Equatorial Guinean courts and to arbitration before the Zurich Chamber of Commerce. After relations soured, Equatorial Guinea excluded Marseille- Kliniken from the site. The company launched Swiss arbitrations and recovered damages in two cases. In the latter, the state contested jurisdiction, contending the clause mandated exhaustion of domestic remedies before any arbitration. The tribunal rejected that reading and granted Marseille- Kliniken US$9m. Seeking recognition, Marseille- Kliniken petitioned the US District Court for D. C. under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( FSIA) and the New York...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Supreme Court—the appropriate currency for a costs order ( Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria) In a judgment delivered on 22 October 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed that the English courts may order costs in a currency other than sterling. However, it decided that where costs were incurred and settled in sterling, they are recoverable in sterling without any inquiry into how the receiving party came by that sterling. See News Analysis: Supreme Court—the appropriate currency for a costs order ( Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria) by Jamie Carpenter KC of Hailsham...

MSA Global LLC ( Oman) And Engineering Projects ( India) Ltd [2025] SGHC 199 What are the practical implications of this case? For those practising in commercial arbitration, this decision confirms that the court at the juridical seat is paramount, in that it alone undertakes particular supervisory roles. Yet this does not stop a party from pursuing relief in another, non-seat court. Simultaneous litigation in different courts, with an arbitration running in parallel, adds further complexity to the conflict, as the two forums might deliver inconsistent outcomes on the identical point. If a court outside the seat is convinced to grant anti-arbitration injunctions or other measures, the client may face exposure to contempt risks. For advisers drafting arbitration clauses, the ruling underlines the significance of the selection of seat and the law governing the arbitration agreement. Naming an exclusive court in an...

Deutsche Telekom, A. G., Appellee v Republic of India, Appellant No 24-7081 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling tackles complex questions in international arbitration, namely jurisdiction, arbitrability, and how far sovereign immunity extends under the FSIA. As the D. C. Circuit observed, these matters are also before the US Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari in Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewables Investments LLC, No. 24-1130 ( US, 1 May 2025), with an amicus curiae submission backing it from the European Commission and multiple European states. On sovereign immunity, the FSIA carves out an exception for recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards under section 1605(a)(6). While states often plead immunity in US actions to confirm arbitral awards, courts increasingly reject those arguments by relying on this FSIA exception. Even so, US courts have treated...

Soremi Investments Ltd v China National Gold Group Hong Kong Ltd and Another [2025] HKCFI 4514 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underscores that, however expansive, a clause will not reach controversies that bear only a marginal link to the contract housing it. The court’s analysis prioritises context above the width of the language employed. For deal lawyers, the takeaway is that a contract’s design is as significant as its drafting. Parties frequently default to boilerplate such as ‘arising out of or in connection with this agreement’. The decision illustrates that such wording may fail to encompass behaviour relating to a company’s internal governance, or claims in tort and equity, where the company is not genuinely a party to the transaction......

Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36 What was the background? The facts The appellant, P& ID, had secured an arbitral award against Nigeria arising from a gas processing agreement for power generation that Nigeria was alleged to have failed to perform. The award totalled US$6.6 billion plus interest. In 2023, Nigeria succeeded in the Commercial Court under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the court finding the award had been procured by fraud. By then, interest had swelled the amount to about US$11 billion—several times Nigeria’s annual health and education budgets. Nigeria obtained an order for its costs. For the section 68 proceedings, Nigeria instructed English solicitors, Mishcon de Reya LLP, who billed in sterling and were paid in sterling. Nigeria’s costs claim is approximately £44 million. The issue P& ID maintained that Nigeria should recover its costs only in its...

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 New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Supreme Court upholds costs award in sterling The UK Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Process & Industrial Developments Ltd’s ( P& ID) challenge to a costs order made in favour of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( Nigeria). It confirmed that the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal were right to make the order in sterling rather than Nigeria’s national currency, the naira. The justices held that costs orders are discretionary, not compensatory like damages, and that it was proper to frame the order in the currency in which Nigeria incurred and settled its legal expenses. The court...

Supreme Court upholds costs award in sterling ( Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria) Process & Industrial Developments Ltd ( Appellant) v The Federal Republic of Nigeria ( Respondent) [2025] UKSC 36 Background This appeal focuses on a costs order arising from Nigeria’s successful bid to set aside two arbitral awards made in favour of P& ID, and, in particular, whether Nigeria’s legal costs were properly awarded in sterling rather than naira, its national currency. P& ID, the appellant, had contracted with Nigeria to build a gas processing plant in Nigeria. In the third year of the contract, P& ID commenced arbitration against Nigeria. The tribunal subsequently issued two awards in 2015 and 2017 totalling $6.6bn, plus interest at 7% (the Arbitration Awards), for damages for repudiatory breach of contract. In 2018, P& ID sought to enforce the...

Glencore International AG v Shree Ganesh Metals and another Civil Appeal No. 11067 of 2025 @ Special Leave Petition ( C) No. 27985 of 2019, 2025 SCC On Line SC 1815 What are the practical implications of this case? The SC’s ruling strengthens the presumption in favour of upholding an arbitration clause/agreement, making clear that a formal signature is not a precondition for the clause within a contract to be valid and binding. Where the parties are shown to have assented to a contract through conduct, the agreement is treated as concluded, all the more so when it has thereafter been performed. It follows that once a valid contract is found to exist, every right and obligation it contains binds the parties, including the provision embodying the arbitration agreement. In reaching this position, the SC reaffirmed its earlier...

DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC( I) 24 What are the practical implications of this case? DNO delivers two principal lessons concerning how to pursue natural justice objections, and how to prove foreign law by parties involved. First, the SICC has given firm guidance to arbitral participants that alleged breaches of natural justice should be raised without delay and as a matter of priority with both the tribunal and the opposing party during the course of the arbitration. It is enough to communicate the essence of the complaint; there is no obligation to say expressly that an application to set aside will be filed if the point is not addressed. A failure to do this may lead to the closure of any later attempt to have the award set aside on that ground. Do note, however, that this analysis is probably confined to...

Following a hearing of ADC’s bid to extend time under AA 1996, s 80(5) and CPR 62.9, the court issued this judgment. Notably, it offers a thorough—albeit obiter—analysis of whether a non-participant may invoke s 72(1), and in particular if such an application can be made after an award. The judge held that s 72(1) is not confined to pre-award challenges and so is not caught by the s 70(3) deadline. Authored by Mark Wassouf, barrister, 3 Verulam Buildings. African Distribution Company S.a. R. L v AASTAR Trading Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 2428 ( Comm). What are the practical implications of this case? It is now settled that those who did not take part in the arbitration can rely on s 72(1) to attack an award after it is issued, as well as beforehand. The consequence is that a...

On Monday, Justice Rory Mulcahy of Ireland’s High Court determined that Russia’s joint-stock entity, JSC, had accepted the authority of the Irish courts by lodging failed appeals against earlier orders and, in the course of those appeals, entering an unconditional appearance. He observed that GTLK Europe DAC and its affiliate, GTLK Europe Capital DAC, are each owned and controlled by JSC, which itself is owned by the Russian Federation. According to Justice Mulcahy, the Court of Appeal held that, by those steps, JSC had submitted to Irish jurisdiction. It also found that JSC’s absence at first instance was a tactical choice rather than any mistake on its part, and that it would amount to an abuse of process to allow JSC to raise in the Court of Appeal grounds it had deliberately declined to advance in the High Court. Delivering his...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Investment treaty 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 Lex Talk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Limits of court assistance under sections 43–44 Arbitration Act 1996 In VXJ v FY [2025] EWHC 2394 ( Comm), the Commercial Court declined VXJ’s application for assistance under sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). VXJ sought orders compelling non-party shareholders to produce corruption investigation materials, US litigation papers and technical reports for use in a London-seated UNCITRAL arbitration. The court found the requests overly broad, engaging serious privilege and confidentiality concerns, and imposing disproportionate burdens given the scale of the archives. It underscored that a section 43 witness summons must pinpoint the documents sought and show they are...

A German investor came before an Israeli court to have an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ( ICSID) award, issued in Paris on 22 June 2021, recognised and enforced, but met a judicial reaction that, though mindful of the ICSID Convention’s unique enforcement framework, ultimately refused to set the local apparatus in motion, at least for the time being. The court paused the case and administratively closed the file, ordering each side to absorb its own expenses, out of respect for a fluid and still-developing clash between foreign legal systems over the enforceability of intra- EU investment awards. While Israel is outside the EU and Israeli courts are not subject to the supremacy assertions of EU law, the bench carefully weighed the broader international backdrop. It noted, on one side, Israel’s treaty commitments under the ICSID Convention. On the other side, it...

Re: Arbitration Appeal No 2 of 2024 [2025] CSOH 70 What are the practical implications of this case? Three aspects of this case stand as a note for practitioners and their clients. First, the Outer House confirmed the formidable bar for a serious irregularity challenge to an arbitral award to succeed in the Scottish courts. The court characterised such challenges as a ‘long stop’, available only in ‘extreme cases’. Success is possible only where the appellant has suffered substantial injustice (paragraph [29]). Against that backdrop, advisers should reflect carefully on bringing such an appeal and their chances of prevailing. Second, the court offered helpful direction on which matters are intrinsic to disputes before an arbitrator (for example, here, the timing of service of an expulsion notice). In that context, the essential function of pleadings is to define the scope of the evidence to be led, not to...

As cryptoassets cement their status as a favoured conduit for cross-border investment and financial services, governments have embraced an array of regulatory strategies and approaches. A core attraction of cryptoassets is their capacity to support dealings outside conventional state scrutiny, letting participants transact with substantial anonymity via decentralised exchanges, privacy-focused coins, mixing services, and stealth addresses. However, these attributes equally heighten the hazards linked to cryptoassets, notably their propensity to facilitate unlawful conduct including money laundering, terrorist financing, and ransomware operations. This piece sets out a comparative review of the ways various jurisdictions are tackling the regulation and oversight of cryptoassets and exchanges and trading platforms to address such threats. Responses span agile, tech-responsive regulatory regimes intended to evolve in tandem with the technology and ongoing innovation, through to stricter policies seeking to exclude decentralised cryptoassets from national markets...

The Court of Appeal affirmed a decision that National Iranian Oil Co ( NIOC) had not effectively transferred its London office to the Retirement, Saving and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers, as the trust instruments were signed only by an agent. A three-judge panel was unanimous that the oil company’s property was not held on trust and therefore could not be ringfenced from its former partner, Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd of the United Arab Emirates, which is in a dispute to enforce an arbitration award. Delivering the judgment, Justice Antony Zacaroli, with whom the other two justices agreed, held that section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 must be read as barring an agent from signing land into a trust; the owner must do so. I conclude that section 53(1)(b) requires written evidence of a declaration of trust over land to be...