Construction arbitration

This subtopic forms part of the Arbitration module. An equivalent subtopic can be found in the Construction module: Arbitration for construction lawyers—overview.

An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers

What is arbitration and how does it differ from other dispute resolution procedures? This Practice Note looks at the general principles behind the arbitration process, including those set out in the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and compares it to litigation and adjudication. It also considers the use of arbitration for disputes in the construction industry. For further information, see Practice Note: An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers.

The pros and cons of arbitration in construction disputes

This Practice Note considers the advantages and disadvantages of selecting arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution

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

Swiss Arbitration announces Belgrade seminar on Swiss arbitration hub status

Swiss Arbitration has announced a free seminar scheduled for 23 May 2025 at the Hilton Hotel Belgrade, examining Switzerland's role as an arbitration hub and the application of Swiss substantive law in international transactions. The event, organised by Swiss Arbitration Ambassadors for the Balkans, will feature two panel discussions with legal professionals from Switzerland and the Balkans. The seminar aims to examine Switzerland's position in international arbitration and its legal framework's relevance to cross-border disputes.

Arbitration weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, France, the USA, Australia and the PCA; updates from UNCTAD, VIAC, SCC Arbitration Institute, SCIA, DIAC, updated guidance from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary on the use of AI and other AI related developments. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

UNCTAD announces updated Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator with 1,401 cases

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has enhanced its Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, with the addition of 1,401 investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases under investment treaties, as of 31 December 2024. The update incorporates new cases, arbitral decisions, and arbitrator appointments sourced from public and specialised reports. In 2024, at least 58 new ISDS cases were initiated, with 135 countries and the European Union having been respondents in such claims. An analysis of ISDS trends will feature in the upcoming World Investment Report 2025.

Arbitration Clauses and Third Parties: Limits of Protection (Renaissance Securities v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) restraining Russian proceedings brought against affiliates of the appellant. Although the relevant agreements on which part of the dispute was founded contained London-seated LCIA arbitration clauses governed by English law, the court held that these agreements to arbitrate did not extend to third-party affiliates. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration clauses implied a negative obligation not to litigate related claims elsewhere. Further, while recognising the Russian proceedings may be vexatious and/or designed to circumvent arbitration clauses and applicable sanctions, the court declined to grant an ASI on discretionary grounds: it found that the appellant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of its corporate relationship with the affiliates following their sale. This lack of transparency undermined the request for relief. This decision underscores that English courts will not extend the scope of an agreement to arbitrate to affiliates without clear contractual language and will carefully scrutinise parties seeking equitable relief where material facts are withheld. The decision also reaffirms the English court’s willingness to intervene in foreign proceedings where necessary to protect arbitration, but only where that intervention can be properly justified. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.