Jurisdiction and applicable laws

Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration

This Practice Note identifies some of the jurisdictional issues that often arise in international arbitration. It indicates how those challenges may arise and what recourse a party may have. See Practice Note: Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration.

Applicable laws in international arbitration

This Practice Note gives guidance on the important subject of the various laws that may apply in an international arbitration. It sets out the circumstances where different laws may apply and gives guidance as to how the relevant law will be identified. See Practice Note: Applicable laws in international arbitration.

Anti-suit injunctions in arbitration (England and Wales)

This Practice Note sets out what an anti-suit injunction is in the context of arbitration, how and when it might be used to restrain the breach of an arbitration agreement. It gives details of the English court's jurisdiction to grant such an injunction under both AA 1996, s 44 and SCA 1981, s 37 and the relationship between those provisions. The note gives information about the scope of an injunction (if awarded) and the court's approach

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

Recognition by New York Court of foreign judgment based on arbitration award (Cargill Financial Services International Inc v Barshchovskiy)

Arbitration analysis: Cargill Financial Services International Inc (Plaintiff) won an arbitration award in London against Mr Barshchovskiy, a Ukrainian national (Defendant). The English Commercial Court issued a judgment confirming the award. Plaintiff then sought to have this English judgment recognized by a New York Court. Defendant resisted such recognition claiming the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. This argument was rejected by the Court. Enforcement of foreign money judgments does require the establishment of personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor (or their assets) but recognition of a foreign judgment is a ministerial act that, absent a few exceptions, does not require establishment of personal jurisdiction. Defendant’s assertions about inadequacies in the underlying arbitration should have been raised before the English Court and were therefore irrelevant when it came to deciding whether to recognize the English judgment. Written by Alex Wilbraham, solicitor England & Wales, Attorney California, independent arbitrator and member of Arbitra International.

Arbitration weekly highlights—27 March 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, Australia, France, Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden and the USA; updates from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, FINRA, HKIAC, LMMA, SCC, SCIAHK, SIAC, and UNCTAD Arbitration Institutes, and Singapore's Ministry of Law; and analysis of international arbitration experts discussions on the major challenges for arbitration in 2025 and the of role of expert witnesses in arbitration proceedings. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

FINRA president hints at offloading arbitration oversight

Law360: The president of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) said on 25 March 2025 that he's considering whether another entity should take up the brokerage regulator's arbitration oversight, questioning whether it's an appropriate function for FINRA to continue running.

Challenges to institution administrative decisions—(DMZ v DNA)

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Singapore refused to interfere with a decision of the Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to amend the deemed date of commencement of an arbitration under Rule 3.3 of the SIAC Rules. The court agreed that the relationship between the parties and the SIAC was a contractual one and that the Registrar was required to exercise the power in a lawful manner and in accordance with the SIAC Rules. However, it held that Rule 40.2 expressly prohibited appeals from or reviews of decisions of the President, Court or Registrar of SIAC. By seeking a declaration that the date of commencement was different from that decided by the Registrar, the plaintiff was mounting a back-door appeal. The plaintiff’s only remedy was to await the award and apply to set it aside on the basis of the incorrect commencement date. The challenge to the decision was therefore in breach of the parties’ agreement and an abuse of process attracting an order for indemnity costs. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM SC is a arrister at William Forster Chambers.