Interim and emergency measures

This Overview provides an outline of the interim and emergency measures subtopic covering interim and emergency measures to support arbitration available within England and Wales under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The Overview provides links to the relevant Practice Notes covering freezing injunctions, emergency relief and how to apply to the courts for the emergency relief, and peremptory orders.

Emergency relief in, or in support of, arbitration under the AA 1996 in England and Wales—tribunal or court?

This Practice Note sets out the powers given to the tribunal under AA 1996 to order interim or emergency relief to support an arbitration. The tribunal’s powers are best seen alongside the court’s powers in order for practitioners to choose how best to protect their clients.

For more information, see Practice Note: AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—tribunal or court?

Emergency relief in arbitration—applying to the tribunal under

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

Arbitration weekly highlights—18 December 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England and Wales, Malaysia and France on award challenges, enforcement and the Sulu arbitration, alongside an update touching on construction arbitration in the context of renewables and energy transition projects. We also report on institutional and court developments from ADGM, the PCA, DIFC and SIArb, as well as wider treaty and market news in international arbitration. The evening celebration of the publication of the LexisNexis International Arbitration Handbook on 20th January 2026 is also noted and registration details for the event provided. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Uganda Commercial Court extends time for setting-aside applications and clarifies arbitrator’s lien

Arbitration analysis: In a bold ruling, the Uganda Commercial Court has broken with binding Supreme Court precedent and its own prior decisions, holding that it has authority to extend the one-month statutory time limit for applying to set aside an arbitral award where there is prima facie a serious ground for setting aside and the interest of justice requires that time be extended. Though open to doubt, the ruling is likely to influence future legislative reform. The court also clarified the effect of an arbitrator’s lien over an award (exercised due to non-payment of their fees) on the timeline for setting aside, holding that the one-month time limit for the setting-aside application begins to run on the date on which the arbitrator actually avails the award to the parties (including the party in default of payment) or makes it available for their collection (typically from the institution administering the arbitration) and not on the date on which the arbitrator informs the parties that the award is ready but has been withheld under lien or even on a prior date on which the award may have been dated and signed but not availed. This is so regardless of who is to blame for the exercise of the lien or who has paid more than their fair share of the arbitrator’s fees to access the withheld award. This holding might incentivise rather than discourage deliberate non-payment of arbitrators’ fees with the intention of delaying issuance of final awards. Written by Hussein D. Gulam, MCIArb, arbitration and litigation attorney at MMAKS Advocates.

OFSI issues General Licence INT/2025/8202932

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has issued General Licence INT/2025/8202932 under regulation 64 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI. 2019/855. The licence permits persons to wind down transactions involving designated persons, specifically relating to Russian oil companies. The licence aims to provide a framework for orderly cessation of existing commercial relationships subject to Russia sanctions.

HKIAC publishes study on arbitrators’ hourly rates in administered cases

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has published a study on arbitrators’ hourly rates in HKIAC-administered arbitrations and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) arbitrations over a five-year review period (1 January 2020–31 December 2024). The report, based on over 1,400 appointments and confirmations, shows that hourly rates generally correlate with the amount in dispute, with presiding arbitrators charging more than co-arbitrators and sole arbitrators. The most common rates fall between HK$6,000 and HK$6,500, close to the current cap under HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (HK$6,500), which will rise to HK$7,500 from January 2026. Rates exceeding the cap were rare, and UNCITRAL cases—where no cap applies—tended to have higher averages. Overall, the highest average rate observed was HK$6,017 for disputes above HK$1bn.