Multi-contract and multi-party arbitration

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis

Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration

This Practice Note discusses how multiple party (multi-party) disputes and disputes concerning multiple contracts (multi-contract) are dealt with in arbitration proceedings (including international arbitration). Such arbitrations are sometimes referred to as complex arbitrations. The Practice Note includes tips on drafting arbitration agreements in these circumstances and also on conducting multi-party arbitration. The Practice Note discusses how an arbitral tribunal (arbitrator(s)) may be appointed in multi-party arbitration, including how AA 1996 (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; under English law) and major institutional and ad-hoc arbitration rules (those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)) deal with this issue. It also covers the issue of joinder of third parties and the consolidation of arbitration proceedings, and AA 1996 and institutional approaches to these mechanisms. For more detail, see Practice Note: Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration—an introduction.

A quick guide to the arbitration process

This Practice Note provides a quick guide to the main

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
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.

View Arbitration by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

If planning permission imposes restrictions on a licensed premises opening hours, once operational can

If planning permission imposes restrictions on a licensed premises opening hours, once operational can the personal licence holder apply for a Temporary Events Notice (TEN) to open for longer hours than those permitted in the planning permission?To use any property for a licensable activity both

Financial clean break orders in family proceedings

Financial clean break orders in family proceedingsDuty of the court to consider a clean breakAlthough there is no presumption in favour of there being a financial clean break between parties on divorce, the court is under a duty to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise its powers so

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to

Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has provided concise guidance as to how misrepresentation should be analysed when considering jurisdictional gateways. Under Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, in negligent misstatement cases, the place of the event giving rise to damage is normally
If planning permission imposes restrictions on a licensed premises opening hours, once operational can

If planning permission imposes restrictions on a licensed premises opening hours, once operational can

If planning permission imposes restrictions on a licensed premises opening hours, once operational can the personal licence holder apply for a Temporary Events Notice (TEN) to open for longer hours than those permitted in the planning permission?To use any property for a licensable activity both

Financial clean break orders in family proceedings

Financial clean break orders in family proceedings

Financial clean break orders in family proceedingsDuty of the court to consider a clean breakAlthough there is no presumption in favour of there being a financial clean break between parties on divorce, the court is under a duty to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise its powers so

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to

Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has provided concise guidance as to how misrepresentation should be analysed when considering jurisdictional gateways. Under Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, in negligent misstatement cases, the place of the event giving rise to damage is normally