The tribunal

The tribunal

Choosing your tribunal

This Practice Note : choosing your arbitral tribunal sets out some practical tips about how to choose the right people to form the arbitral tribunal. It emphasises the importance of appointing the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration agreement and the considerations you may take into account when preparing a shortlist of potential candidates.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Choosing your arbitral tribunal.

Questions for potential arbitrators

This Practice Note considers the purpose and value in obtaining information on potential arbitrators. It sets out possible questions to consider asking potential candidates and details on the means by which such information may be gathered, such as arbitration questionnaires and resources that collate data on arbitrators. It also considers the drawbacks, such as confirmatory bias that may arise due to the use of pre-arbitration questions.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Questions for potential arbitrators.

Appointing the tribunal under the AA 1996 in England and Wales

This Practice Note sets out how to appoint a tribunal in an ad-hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration weekly highlights—6 November 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights brings you notable arbitration decisions from Australia, France, the Netherlands, and the USA; and key updates from UNCITRAL, AAA-ICDR and the IBA. Plus, discover the newly published International Arbitration Handbook by Nina Hall and Dr Gustavo Moser (LexisNexis), with Shai Wade (RPC). Your essential round-up of the week in arbitration—all in one place.

Enforcement of ICSID Awards, State Immunity—(Blasket v Spain)

Arbitration analysis: In Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028, the Federal Court of Australia considered Spain’s plea of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in proceedings to enforce intra-EU International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards in light of Spain’s argument that the awards sought to be enforced were not binding and enforceable against Spain because intra-EU investment arbitration is not permitted under EU law. Contrary to Spain’s arguments, the court held that the awards were binding under Article 53 of the ICSID Convention and enforceable in Australia under Article 54 because Spain waived its immunity from enforcement jurisdiction by entering into the ICSID Convention. The court rejected Spain’s arguments that EU law could prevent enforcement, and also confirmed that the assignment of two awards to Blasket did not affect their enforceability. The decision affirmed the primacy of the ICSID Convention as implemented in Australian law on questions of enforcement, and rejected both the relevance and the merit of Spain’s EU law objections in this context. Written by Marina Kofman, principal at Kofman Arbitration.

AAA-ICDR launches AI arbitrator for construction dispute resolution cases

The American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) has announced the availability of its AI arbitrator for two-party, documents-only construction cases. The system operates under a human-in-the-loop framework where parties review and validate the AI's understanding of submissions, whilst human arbitrators oversee, revise if necessary, confirm and authorise each outcome before finalising awards. The AI arbitrator was trained on AAA construction awards and refined using expert-labelled examples. Participation remains voluntary and fully opt-in, with parties able to proceed under traditional AAA-ICDR processes if they opt out or fall outside the initial use case parameters. The organisation expects to expand the system to additional industries, case types and higher value claims in future phases, including multi-party proceedings and cross-border elements.

French courts re-affirmed how the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy (SNEL v Congo and FG Hemisphere)

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Congolese company Société Nationale d’Électricité (SNEL)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered against it and the Democratic Republic of Congo, confirming France’s pro-enforcement stance. The Court held that as a matter of principle, the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a non-EU foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy in circumstances where the foreign judgment has first obtained exequatur in France and the irreconcilable decisions result in mutually exclusive consequences. In the present case, because the Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had been denied exequatur for lack of proper notice to the opposing party, no irreconciliability could arise. The Court reaffirmed that the mere disregard of a foreign judgment’s res judicata effect by an arbitral award is not, in and of itself, contrary to international public policy. The Court further clarified that the exequatur judge exercises only limited review, verifying the existence of the arbitral award and the absence of any manifest breach of international public policy, dismissing SNEL’s other arguments based on capacity to arbitrate, arbitrability, and foreign procurement rules, which did not amount to a breach of French international public policy. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.