SCC arbitration

SCC arbitration

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Institute

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Institute is part of, but independent from, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. The SCC was established in 1917 and is considered one of Europe’s leading arbitral institutions. For more information on the background to and structure of the institution,

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—restraining arbitration proceedings pending a removal application or procedural challenge (A v B & another)

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Commercial Court refused to stay or restrain two London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitrations pending determination of applications under sections 24 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Party A had sought what it described as a ‘stay’ under CPR 3.1(2)(g), contending that the arbitrations should not proceed while the court considered an application to remove the sole arbitrator and a serious irregularity challenge. Mr Justice Butcher held that CPR 3.1(2)(g) applies only to court proceedings and cannot be invoked to stay arbitral proceedings. Properly characterised, the relief sought was an injunction restraining further pursuit of the arbitrations. The judge doubted whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such relief, given s 1(c) (the principle of non-intervention) and s 24(3), which expressly permits arbitral proceedings to continue while a removal application is pending. In any event, even if such jurisdiction existed, it could only be exercised in exceptional circumstances (for example, where continuation would be vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable), and no such circumstances were made out. The decision underlines the strict limits on judicial intervention in ongoing arbitrations and confirms that the mere existence of s 24 or s 68 applications / challenges will not justify interrupting the arbitral process. Practitioners should note the court’s clear refusal to assume any supervisory role over arbitral procedure prior to an award. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Arbitration clause defeats court claim in multi-party claim in UAE

Arbitration analysis: In Case No 136 of 2025, the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court held that a subcontractor’s AED 103m claim reacting to two Abu Dhabi projects was inadmissible due to a valid and timely invoked arbitration agreement in the subcontract. The court rejected attempts to circumvent arbitration by joining the project owner on the basis of signed undertaking letters, finding that the letters did not create an independent obligation separate from the subcontract framework. The court found that the arbitration clause prevented it from accepting jurisdiction, and that any recourse against the owner was premature pending the arbitration. The decision is a clear reaffirmation that UAE onshore courts will not accept jurisdiction where the arbitration defence is raised at the appropriate time. The decision also emphasizes the UAE courts’ growing reluctance to allow procedural structuring, such as by joinder of non-signatory parties, to bypass agreed arbitral mechanisms. To be clear, the court did not address whether an arbitral tribunal might ultimately decide that the project owner itself is bound by the arbitration agreement. By characterising the claim against the project owner as premature, the court implicitly contemplated that such a claim could be brought before it at the appropriate stage. Conversely, the court’s express concern to avoid fragmentation of disputes may be a relevant consideration for the tribunal if and when it is asked to determine any application to join the project owner to the arbitration. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at Reed Smith LLP.

DIS announces increase to arbitrators' fees effective 1 March 2026

The German Arbitration Institute (DIS) has announced that its Board of Directors has approved revisions to its Schedule of Costs to adjust arbitrators’ fees, effective from 1 March 2026. The decision follows an initiative by the President of the DIS Council, Richard Happ, and addresses fee levels that have remained unchanged since 1 March 2018. Under the revised structure, lump-sum arbitrator fees for proceedings involving amounts in dispute of up to €100,000 will increase by approximately 20–25%. For disputes between €100,000 and €100m, the graduated percentage rates applicable to arbitrators’ fees will be subject to moderate increases. For disputes exceeding €100m, the revised Schedule provides for slightly reduced percentage increases.

SVAMC publishes white paper on technology companies and international arbitration

The Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) has published a white paper examining the underrepresentation of technology-related disputes in international arbitration, despite the sector's role in the global economy. The paper examines why arbitration should, in principle, be well suited to technology companies, highlighting features including procedural flexibility, confidentiality, access to specialist decision-makers and cross-border enforceability under the New York Convention. It also considers why technology companies may default to litigation over arbitration, including concerns about arbitration costs and time, perceived advantages of US court procedures such as broad discovery and jury trials, limited appeal options and unfamiliarity with arbitration among corporate decision-makers. In addition, the paper introduces SVAMC's Task Force on Tech Disputes, Tech Companies & International Arbitration, which will conduct systematic, data-driven research to identify the factors shaping technology companies' dispute-resolution choices and develop recommendations to better align arbitration with sector priorities.