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

Brazilian Court sets scope of arbitrator disclosure duty (U. R. V. Ltda v C. de P. de C.)

Arbitration analysis: The São Paulo State Appellate Court vacated an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of sufficient disclosure by one of the arbitrators. The decision presents multiple topics, but the discussion on the effects of lack of disclosure will probably produce more immediate impact on Brazilian practice. It held that an arbitrator's failure to disclose ongoing and significant professional relationships with counsel of one party undermined confidence in impartiality, warranting nullification of the award. This decision underscores the delicate balance between ensuring transparency and avoiding disclosure overload. The case prompts consideration on whether Brazil's arbitration regime requires additional legislative intervention or refined institutional practices to guide arbitrators and parties. Written by Martim Della Valle (partner at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados) and Felipe Sartório de Melo (arbitration counsel at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados).

CRCICA announces leadership transition: Director's tenure extended and successor elected

The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) has announced a significant leadership transition. In a Board of Trustees meeting on 11 December 2024, Dr. Ismail Selim's tenure as Director was extended by one year, concluding on 31 December 2025. Concurrently, Dr. Dalia Hussein was elected as his successor, set to assume the role on 1 January 2026 for a four-year term. Dr. Hussein, with over two decades of experience in international arbitration and dispute resolution, including ten years at CRCICA, has been recognised for her impartiality, strategic vision, and commitment to excellence.

ILC publishes report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards

The International Law Compliance (ILC) has published the report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards 2024 3rd edition. The report includes the latest data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which reveals a significant increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, with 1,332 known treaty-based arbitrations to date. Of the 958 concluded cases, 37.7% were decided in favour of respondent states. The report highlights Spain's position as the world leader in unpaid arbitration awards, with 24 outstanding, surpassing Venezuela and Russia. Spain also tops the list of Energy Charter Treaty disputes with 52 initiated cases.

English court declares Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear dispute (Barclays Bank plc v VEB)

Arbitration analysis: In the first of two separate judgments, the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) found that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, under section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In the second judgment, the court granted a declaration sought by Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) that an arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by VEB.RF (VEB) under a currency swap agreement. This declaration was made in circumstances where Barclays had validly served a notice on VEB pursuant to the terms of an arbitration agreement, requiring VEB's claim to be heard by the English courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.