International arbitration agreements

Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention

This Practice Note sets out the requirements specified in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) for a valid arbitration agreement pursuant to Article II of the New York Convention. It also considers the enforcement of arbitration agreements pursuant to Article II(3) of the New York Convention.

See Practice Note: Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention.

Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose, the ‘in writing’ requirement and content

While largely focused on the position under the law of England & Wales, the following Practice Notes will be of interest and use for those considering international arbitration agreements:

•
Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation
•
Arbitration agreements—the in writing requirement
•
Arbitration agreements—content

Arbitrability in international arbitration

This Practice Note discusses what matters are ‘arbitrable’ in an international context including which laws determine the question of arbitrability. It covers the position under English law and relevant provisions in the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law. The Practice Note also discusses when the issue of arbitrability should be raised.

See Practice Note: Arbitrability

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

ICCA announces leadership changes and new governing board appointments

The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) has announced changes to its leadership structure, with Audley Sheppard KC elected as President-Elect to succeed current President Stanimir Alexandrov in 2026. Dyalá Jiménez, former Minister of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica, will assume the role of Vice President from 1 April 2025. Additionally, five new Governing Board Members have been appointed: Aisha Abdallah (Kenya), Chiann Bao (Singapore), Tunde Fagbohunlu (Nigeria), Shaneen Parikh (India) and Vladimir Pavić (Serbia), whilst Judith Gill has been re-elected for a second term. The new appointments will take effect from 1 April 2025, with the new board members formally joining at the ICCA-KIAC Conference in Kigali on 5 June 2025.

Stay of application for injunction in favour of Arbitration (Hunt v IPS Law LLP and Others)

Arbitration analysis: The claimant, Mr Hunt, invested £1.05m in January 2023 through IPS Law LLP (‘IPS Law’), the second defendant, which was meant to hold the funds for the first defendant, Oceania Capital Reserves Ltd (‘Oceania’). IPS Law later apparently transferred the funds, but the circumstances in which that occurred (and the instructions on which IPS Law and its principal, Mr Farnell, the third defendant, relied) were unclear. Mr Hunt applied for an injunction to preserve the funds in IPS Law’s account. The defendants, in return, applied for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that the Investment Agreement between Mr Hunt and Oceania (with IPS Law as the ‘Investment Escrow Party’) referred disputes to arbitration. The court held that IPS Law was not a party to the arbitration clause and could not rely upon it under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) (Mr Farnell accepted he was not a party). The court decided, however, that there was a serious issue to be tried in relation to the handling of Mr Hunt’s funds and accordingly granted a proprietary injunction. The case addresses issues over the court’s jurisdiction to order a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and its ability to order relief where funds held in a solicitors’ client account have been paid away apparently without instruction. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty (UniCredit v RusChemAlliance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

IBA publishes report on res judicata in international arbitration

The International Bar Association's (IBA) Arbitration Committee Task Force has published a report examining the application of res judicata in international arbitration. The study reveals significant inconsistencies in current practices, including conflicts in choice-of-law approaches and divergent interpretations of the principle's scope. Notably, the report emphasises the inadequacy of domestic legal standards in addressing the complexities of international arbitration. To address these challenges, the Task Force advocates for the development of an autonomous standard specifically tailored to international arbitration, with the aim of enhancing consistency, predictability and efficiency in dispute resolution.