The arbitration agreement

The arbitration agreement is considered the ‘foundation stone’ of arbitration, typically setting out where, how and under what circumstances arbitrations between parties are to be conducted.

This subtopic contains practical guidance on the arbitration agreement and related matters. The various Practice Notes consider the nature, content and scope of the arbitration agreement, the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement, and the relevance of the New York Convention in this particular context. Guidance on how the law of the arbitration agreement may be determined is also provided, as well as content on how to effectively incorporate an arbitration agreement into a contract, the factors that may prevent an arbitration agreement from being upheld, and what disputes may be arbitrated (ie arbitrability). Guidance on the closely-related concept of the seat of arbitration (or arbitral seat) can also be found in this subtopic, as well as information on multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations, the impact of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 on arbitration, and unilateral option clauses.

Generally speaking, this subtopic provides guidance on the arbitration agreement under English and Welsh law and the

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

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

CJEU Advocate General rules EU Russia sanctions form part of Union public policy

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General Andrea Biondi has delivered an opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel stating that the prohibition on satisfying claims by Russian entities under Council Regulation 833/2014 forms part of European Union public policy. The opinion, delivered on 26 February 2026, establishes that national courts must ensure arbitration awards comply with this prohibition and set aside awards that breach it, acting of their own motion if necessary. The case arose from a 2015 contract between a Belgian company and Russian entity where EU restrictive measures prevented performance, leading to a 2021 Swedish arbitration award ordering repayment of advance payments. Advocate General Biondi concluded that while arbitration proceedings concerning such claims may proceed, tribunals cannot provide favourable responses to Russian entity claims affected by restrictive measures. The opinion emphasises that arbitration tribunals remain bound by EU law and national courts must exercise effective judicial review to prevent circumvention of sanctions prohibitions.

CEPANI publishes 2025 statistical survey showing growth in international arbitration cases

The Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI) has published its 2025 statistical survey, reporting an increase in newly initiated arbitration proceedings and continued growth in international and high-value disputes. Overall, 38% of cases involved at least one international party, including 9% with only international parties (compared with none in 2024), while 53% involved exclusively Belgian parties. Proceedings were introduced in English (47%), Dutch (38%) and French (15%). Expedited cases involving claims below €100,000 accounted for 15% of the caseload, while 46% of disputes involved amounts exceeding €1m, up from 37% in 2024. Brussels was selected as the seat in 76% of cases, with 18% seated elsewhere in Belgium and 6% abroad, namely Luxembourg. CEPANI states that women represented 30% of appointed arbitrators (up from 23% in 2024), with 50% of Appointments Committee appointments going to women. In addition, 18% of appointed arbitrators were under 40, 83% of whom were appointed by the Committee.

Court of Appeal—serving a party not physically within the jurisdiction (Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance as to how practitioners should approach service where the party to be served is not only physically outside the jurisdiction, but has been made the subject of sanctions under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and is an 'excluded person' within section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, with the consequence that they are not entitled to enter the UK. The court held that even where proceedings have been sent to a party’s last known address within the jurisdiction in compliance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which would normally result in valid service having been undertaken, service cannot have taken place by these means in the case of a party not entitled to enter the jurisdiction. The result was that the proceedings had not been validly served. In such cases service must be effected by alternative means or an order sought dispensing with service altogether. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.