Coronavirus (COVID-19)

This subtopic is a source of resources for arbitration practitioners in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Across the world, arbitral organisations and practitioners have responded, and will continue to respond, to the outbreak with practical guidance, advice and adjustments to their standard operating procedures as society adjusts to the virus.

Coronavirus and its affects require parties, practitioners and arbitrators to think carefully about how the pandemic may influence arbitral proceedings already on foot or which have yet to be commenced.

In advance of commencing arbitral proceedings (including any applications for expedited and emergency arbitration), it is vital for practitioners to check the latest guidance provided by any relevant arbitral organisation that may impact standard processes. In pending proceedings, parties should liaise with their tribunals and the other parties to resolve any challenges that arise, including in relation to conducting hearings during this period when social distancing, travel restrictions and other limitations apply.

It is also very likely that any arbitration-related court processes will be impacted by the outbreak, and it will be important to stay up to date with the latest guidance from the relevant

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

Viet Nam signs MoU with UNCITRAL to modernise commercial law framework

The United Nations Information Service (UNIS) has announced that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to enhance cooperation on matters of international trade law. Signed during UNCITRAL’s 58th session in Vienna on 17 July 2025, the MoU is intended to support the modernisation of Viet Nam’s commercial legal framework and promote awareness of UNCITRAL’s work. The agreement builds on previous joint initiatives, including events on arbitration, smart contracts and the digital economy, and coincides with the start of Viet Nam’s new six-year term as a UNCITRAL Member State. Viet Nam has also submitted a proposal for future UNCITRAL work on carbon markets and proposed hosting an inter-sessional meeting on investor-State dispute settlement reform in 2026.

IACtHR advisory opinion urges reform of ISDS mechanisms for climate action

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has issued an advisory opinion calling for states to review their investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to ensure alignment with climate obligations. The opinion identifies that older investment treaties focused solely on investment protection may impede climate action and recommends reforms to prevent regulatory chill. The court determined that companies have direct obligations regarding climate change impacts and states must implement mandatory environmental impact assessments for projects with significant environmental risks. The opinion precedes an anticipated International Court of Justice ruling on climate obligations due 23 July 2025.

Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services announces when Arbitration Act 2025 comes into effect

As reported by the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), The Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services has announced that the Arbitration Act 2025 will come into effect on 1 August 2025. More details to follow.

Jurisdictional challenge to arbitral award on the basis of award creditor’s corporate restructuring (Energyen v HHI and KSOE)

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court refused to overturn an arbitral award, following a jurisdictional challenge made under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). This arose from the Korean corporate restructuring of an original counterparty to a supply contract, which had occurred before the arbitration was commenced. The award debtor contended that, in the context of the restructuring, the award creditor was not in fact a party to the supply contract, had not commenced the arbitration and that there had been no valid transfer to the award creditor of the right to arbitrate. The case provides useful guidance for parties in relation to how the English courts will treat challenges to arbitral awards based on the contested impact of corporate succession and where questions are raised in relation to the transfer of rights to bring claims in arbitration. Written by Rebecca Warder, Head of Knowledge at Hausfeld LLP.