Jurisdiction and applicable laws

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration

This Practice Note identifies some of the jurisdictional issues that often arise in international arbitration. It indicates how those challenges may arise and what recourse a party may have. See Practice Note: Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration.

Applicable laws in international arbitration

This Practice Note gives guidance on the important subject of the various laws that may apply in an international arbitration. It sets out the circumstances where different laws may apply and gives guidance as to how the relevant law will be identified. See Practice Note: Applicable laws in international arbitration.

Anti-suit injunctions in arbitration (England and Wales)

This Practice Note sets out what an anti-suit injunction is in the context of arbitration, how and when it might be used to restrain the breach of an arbitration agreement. It gives details of the English court's jurisdiction to grant such an injunction under both AA 1996, s 44 and SCA 1981, s 37 and the relationship between those provisions. The note gives information about the scope of an injunction (if awarded) and the court's approach

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

FINRA publishes Regulatory Notice 26‑06 requesting comment on modernising arbitration rules

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has published Regulatory Notice 26-06 requesting comments on modernising its arbitration rules, guidance and processes. The Notice focuses on key areas including forum selection, eligibility, motions to dismiss, arbitrator qualifications, discovery, punitive damages, explained decisions and unpaid awards. It forms part of FINRA’s broader review aimed at enhancing transparency, impartiality and efficiency in its arbitration forum, following stakeholder feedback and issues raised in prior rule modernisation initiatives. Comments will inform potential changes to FINRA’s arbitration framework, including customer and industry dispute procedures, arbitrator standards, discovery practices and mechanisms to address unpaid awards. Comments are invited by 1 May 2026.

Singapore—ICSID award enforcement—state immunity and the Intra-EU Objection (NextEra v Spain)

Arbitration analysis: In NextEra Energy Global Holdings BV and another v Kingdom of Spain [2026] SGHC 43, the Singapore High Court dismissed Spain's application to set aside a registration order for an ICSID award, holding that Spain could not rely on state immunity to resist enforcement. The court found that both the exceptions in section 4 of the State Immunity Act 1979 (SIA) (the Submission Exception) and in s 11 (the Arbitration Exception) applied, and that Spain's Intra-EU Objection (the argument that EU law invalidates investor-state arbitration between EU Member States under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)) failed. The decision is significant for arbitration practitioners as it strengthens Singapore's position as a reliable enforcement forum for Investor-State awards and confirms the limited scope of sovereign immunity in this context. It also matters for public international law practitioners advising States: treaty-based consent to arbitration carries consequences at the enforcement stage that States cannot easily escape. Written by Colin Liew, director and head of International Litigation practice group at Providence Law Asia LLC.

Supreme Court holds that article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention constitutes a clear waiver of adjudicative state immunity under section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 The Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and another; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd and another

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeals in The Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and another; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd and another [2026] UKSC 9. It held that, by becoming signatories to article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, Spain and Zimbabwe submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts within the meaning of section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and therefore could not rely on state immunity to resist the registration of ICSID arbitration awards against them under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966. The Court rejected the argument that article 54(1) did not amount to a clear and unequivocal waiver of adjudicative immunity, holding that its ordinary meaning, treaty context, object and purpose, and travaux préparatoires demonstrate that contracting states consent to recognition and enforcement of awards in the courts of other contracting states, subject only to immunity from execution preserved by article 55. Ana Margetts, Associate at RPC, provides commentary on the judgement.

Arbitration—restraining arbitration proceedings pending a removal application or procedural challenge (A v B & another)

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Commercial Court refused to stay or restrain two London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitrations pending determination of applications under sections 24 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Party A had sought what it described as a ‘stay’ under CPR 3.1(2)(g), contending that the arbitrations should not proceed while the court considered an application to remove the sole arbitrator and a serious irregularity challenge. Mr Justice Butcher held that CPR 3.1(2)(g) applies only to court proceedings and cannot be invoked to stay arbitral proceedings. Properly characterised, the relief sought was an injunction restraining further pursuit of the arbitrations. The judge doubted whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such relief, given s 1(c) (the principle of non-intervention) and s 24(3), which expressly permits arbitral proceedings to continue while a removal application is pending. In any event, even if such jurisdiction existed, it could only be exercised in exceptional circumstances (for example, where continuation would be vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable), and no such circumstances were made out. The decision underlines the strict limits on judicial intervention in ongoing arbitrations and confirms that the mere existence of s 24 or s 68 applications / challenges will not justify interrupting the arbitral process. Practitioners should note the court’s clear refusal to assume any supervisory role over arbitral procedure prior to an award. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

View Arbitration by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a