Jurisdiction and applicable law

Stay of court proceedings to enable or in favour of arbitration (s 9)

This Practice Note sets out how to apply under AA 1996, s 9 for litigation or court proceedings to be stayed in order to enable arbitration and how and when to make an application, including the factors that the court considers when exercising its discretion.

This Practice Note also considers what steps a party can take if it commences proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. Key to an application under AA 1996, s 9 is the existence of an arbitration agreement and the note discusses how the court deals with this question in single and multi-party circumstances. It also covers how costs are dealt with in the case of an AA 1996, s 9 application and how a counterclaim affects such an application. An AA 1996, s 9 application may also be referred to as a stay for arbitration, a stay of litigation in favour of arbitration, or a stay for breach of an arbitration agreement. The note also considers whether the AA 1996, s 9 procedure can be used

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

Post-hearing delay and the Public Policy Threshold in Arbitration (Lancor Holdings Ltd v Prem Kumar Menon)

Arbitration analysis: In Lancor Holdings Ltd v Prem Kumar Menon, the Supreme Court of India held that while mere delay in rendering an arbitral award is not an independent ground for setting it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an inordinate and unexplained delay that materially affects the reasoning or renders the award unworkable may vitiate it on grounds of patent illegality or conflict with public policy. The court found that a nearly four-year post-hearing delay, coupled with contradictory reasoning and loss of adjudicatory coherence, defeated the fundamental objectives of arbitration - finality, fairness, and efficiency. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to avoid remanding a 16-year-old dispute to fresh arbitration, the court upheld the validity of the sale deeds executed by the developer but directed forfeiture of ₹10 crore in favour of the landowners as a condition for the developer reclaiming its contractual share. The ruling underscores that procedural legitimacy and timeliness are integral to arbitral justice, refining public policy review as limited safeguard against systemic arbitral failure rather than a vehicle for merits reappraisal. Practical implications written by Prasanth Raju of Chambers of Prasanth Raju.

Commentary—international arbitration experts discuss the use of an AI arbitrator for construction arbitrations

Mealey’s International Arbitration Report recently asked industry experts and leaders for their thoughts on the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announcement of the launch of an AI arbitrator for use in construction arbitration.

SVAMC and DIS sign MoU

The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the German Arbitration Institute (DIS), establishing a strategic partnership. The MoU provides a framework for collaboration through joint conferences, seminars and workshops, as well as participation in technology-related task forces and working groups. The partnership also creates new opportunities for practitioners, users and academics to exchange ideas, develop best practices and advance modern approaches to arbitration and mediation globally.

Switzerland - Revision of an arbitral award influenced by forgeries and fraud (A. v B., 4A_268/2025)

Arbitration analysis: In a judgment dated 22 October 2025 (4A_268/2025), the Swiss Federal Tribunal granted an application for revision of an international arbitral award rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2018/O/5735), holding that the award had been influenced, to the detriment of the player, by criminal offences committed by his former agent. The criminal courts had established that the agent had submitted forged contracts and a fabricated email in order to mislead the sole arbitrator and obtain payment of an undue commission. Relying on Article 190a(1)(b) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Federal Tribunal set aside the award and remitted the case to the CAS. The decision is exceptional in Swiss arbitration practice, where successful revisions of arbitral awards based on criminal conduct remain extremely rare. It underscores the decisive evidentiary role played by criminal proceedings—particularly where criminal authorities, unlike arbitral tribunals, can rely on coercive powers and international mutual legal assistance to uncover fraud. More broadly, the judgment confirms that Swiss law provides an effective mechanism to ensure that arbitration cannot be instrumentalized as a vehicle for criminal misconduct. Written by Pierre Ducret, CMS Switzerland, counsel to the player before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and in all related proceedings.