International Arbitration
A world class arbitration practice advising clients on commercial and investment arbitration all around the world
We regularly represent both investors and States in significant arbitrations under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. We also help our investor clients navigate complex legal, cultural and political landscapes to secure the best ongoing protection for their foreign investments.
Recent experience includes representing:
Our experienced arbitration practitioners have expertise in representing a wide range of clients across a variety of sectors (including energy, mining, construction, technology, telecommunications, financial services, pharmaceuticals and many more) in complex, high value arbitrations.
Recent experience includes:
16 May 2022 //
In Aquavita International SA v Indagro SA [2022] EWHC 892 (Comm), the English Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain Brazilian court proceedings where those proceedings would be an attempt to “outflank” the parties’ arbitration agreement (rather than in aid of the agreed procedure).The case considers where the line will be drawn.
9 May 2022 //
In a recent judgment (PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints and Others [2022] EWHC 871 (Comm)) the English High Court considered the degree to which an arbitration award could have preclusive effects against non-parties to the arbitral proceedings. Although it did not completely rule this out, it set a high bar.
3 May 2022 //
In Africa Finance Corp & others v Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Limited [2022] EWHC 768 (Comm), the English Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction despite a 13-month delay in seeking it since this was justifiable partly as the parties had been engaged in negotiations to facilitate payment of the disputed debt. The case illustrates that although promptness is important in such an application, the English court will exercise its discretion to take into account the circumstances of a case.
19 April 2022 //
On 21 March 2022 the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) announced that its Member States have approved a comprehensive set of updates to the rules governing ICSID's procedure, which will now come into effect on 1 July 2022. The revisions intend to streamline ICSID's procedures in order to improve transparency, make proceedings faster and more convenient, and widen access to ICSID dispute resolution.
24 March 2022 //
In General Dynamics v Libya [2022] EWHC 501 (Comm), the English High Court has considered the degree to which issues of state immunity needed to be raised in a without notice application for permission to enforce a New York Convention award, as opposed to when actual execution steps are taken.
22 February 2022 //
In recent years, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, international arbitration has seen an increased shift towards the use of digital technologies. Whist this has greatly reduced the carbon footprint of the arbitration process, the increased use of technology leads to a significant increase of cyber security risks and data protection issues. All arbitration participants need to have a clear approach to mitigate these risks with a view to safeguarding proceedings.
10 February 2022 //
A recent ruling of the Russian Supreme Court will be of considerable interest to parties contracting with entities that may be impacted by financial and other sanctions imposed on Russian individuals or companies, in particular in informing their dispute resolution provisions.
7 February 2022 //
In a recent judgment, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award which was maintained despite the award having been paid. Jeremy Quan-Sing (Partner), William Ho (Senior Associate) and William Stone (Associate) from Allens report.
3 February 2022 //
In LLC Agronefteprodukt v. Ameropa AG [2021] EWHC 3474 (Comm), the English High Court dismissed a challenge to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal based on a claim that the notice of arbitration illegitimately purported to commence a single arbitration in respect of two separate claims under two contracts. Here, we examine the ruling and its implications.
Contact one of our experts for more information
