Jurisdiction and applicable laws

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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

ICSID announces Honduras signs investment disputes convention

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has announced that Honduras has signed the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. With this signing, Honduras becomes the 166th signatory to the ICSID Convention and, upon ratification, will become a Member State with access to arbitration and conciliation services for resolving investment disputes between the Honduran government and foreign investors.

India—Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional rules for Arbitral mandate extensions (JC V SC)

Arbitration analys: In Jagdeep Chowgule v Sheela Chowgule and others (Chowgule), the Supreme Court of India has put to rest a jurisdictional dichotomy that had produced divergent judgements from various High Courts in India. Under section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the ‘Act’), a domestic arbitral tribunal has a strict mandate of twelve months (after the filing of the Statement of Defence) to render an arbitral award. After the expiry of such time, the parties may, by consent, extend the mandate for further six months. When this extended time is also lapsed, the parties are required to file an application under section 29 A(4) of the Act to extend the mandate. The dichotomy arose with regard to which court had the power to grant this extension since some High Courts held that the applicants seeking to extend mandate of an arbitral tribunal, had to approach the court which appointed the arbitrator, while others held that it would be the Principal Civil Court which had jurisdiction over the arbitration, as per the statutory provisions. In Chowugle, the Supreme Court clarified that applications for extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate must be filed before the Principal Civil Court of a specific district, regardless of whether the arbitrator was initially appointed by the High Court under section 11(6) of the Act or by consent of the parties under section 11(2) of the Act. This decision provides clarity to practitioners navigating extension applications and displays the Supreme Court's commitment to textual fidelity in statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing Court under section 11 becomes functus officio upon constituting an arbitral tribunal and retains no residual supervisory role. Written by: Ms. Ila Kapoor, partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co & Mr Rachit Bansal, associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

SIAC publishes compendium of arbitrator challenge decisions

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has published a compendium of challenge decisions, comprising redacted versions of decisions issued by the SIAC Court of Arbitration on challenges to arbitrators. The publication aims to enhance transparency and accessibility for parties, counsel and arbitral tribunals regarding SIAC Court decisions, while maintaining the confidentiality of the underlying proceedings.

The Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court confirms that the Sole Arbitrator in the Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu v Malaysia case acted in serious disobedience to the court

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of Spain upheld the criminal conviction of a Sole Arbitrator who continued arbitral proceedings after his judicial appointment had been nullified due to defective service on a foreign sovereign. Despite being expressly required by the court clerk to cease acting, the Sole Arbitrator persisted, issued a preliminary award confirming jurisdiction, moved the arbitral seat from Madrid to Paris, and ultimately rendered the final award ordering the respondent State of Malaysia to pay approx. US$ 15bn. The Supreme Court held that the arbitral autonomy cannot justify disregarding a binding judicial decision declaring nullity of the arbitrator’s appointment. Once the appointment proceedings were nullified, the appointment decision was removed from ‘the legal world’ and, thus, the Sole Arbitrator lacked any valid mandate to continue arbitration. This judgment is significant for arbitration practitioners as it draws a line between legitimate resistance to judicial interference and defiance of court authority, which is not permissible. It may also imply potential criminal exposure for arbitrators in similar circumstances. Some observers may view the case as an intrusion into arbitral independence. However, the Supreme Court framed the issue not as judicial control over arbitration itself, but as enforcement of a binding judicial decision concerning the very existence of the arbitrator’s mandate. Written by Malgorzata Judkiewicz-Garvan, independent arbitrator & lecturer in Arbitration.