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

Arbitration clause defeats court claim in multi-party claim in UAE

Arbitration analysis: In Case No 136 of 2025, the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court held that a subcontractor’s AED 103m claim reacting to two Abu Dhabi projects was inadmissible due to a valid and timely invoked arbitration agreement in the subcontract. The court rejected attempts to circumvent arbitration by joining the project owner on the basis of signed undertaking letters, finding that the letters did not create an independent obligation separate from the subcontract framework. The court found that the arbitration clause prevented it from accepting jurisdiction, and that any recourse against the owner was premature pending the arbitration. The decision is a clear reaffirmation that UAE onshore courts will not accept jurisdiction where the arbitration defence is raised at the appropriate time. The decision also emphasizes the UAE courts’ growing reluctance to allow procedural structuring, such as by joinder of non-signatory parties, to bypass agreed arbitral mechanisms. To be clear, the court did not address whether an arbitral tribunal might ultimately decide that the project owner itself is bound by the arbitration agreement. By characterising the claim against the project owner as premature, the court implicitly contemplated that such a claim could be brought before it at the appropriate stage. Conversely, the court’s express concern to avoid fragmentation of disputes may be a relevant consideration for the tribunal if and when it is asked to determine any application to join the project owner to the arbitration. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at Reed Smith LLP.

DIS announces increase to arbitrators' fees effective 1 March 2026

The German Arbitration Institute (DIS) has announced that its Board of Directors has approved revisions to its Schedule of Costs to adjust arbitrators’ fees, effective from 1 March 2026. The decision follows an initiative by the President of the DIS Council, Richard Happ, and addresses fee levels that have remained unchanged since 1 March 2018. Under the revised structure, lump-sum arbitrator fees for proceedings involving amounts in dispute of up to €100,000 will increase by approximately 20–25%. For disputes between €100,000 and €100m, the graduated percentage rates applicable to arbitrators’ fees will be subject to moderate increases. For disputes exceeding €100m, the revised Schedule provides for slightly reduced percentage increases.

SVAMC publishes white paper on technology companies and international arbitration

The Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) has published a white paper examining the underrepresentation of technology-related disputes in international arbitration, despite the sector's role in the global economy. The paper examines why arbitration should, in principle, be well suited to technology companies, highlighting features including procedural flexibility, confidentiality, access to specialist decision-makers and cross-border enforceability under the New York Convention. It also considers why technology companies may default to litigation over arbitration, including concerns about arbitration costs and time, perceived advantages of US court procedures such as broad discovery and jury trials, limited appeal options and unfamiliarity with arbitration among corporate decision-makers. In addition, the paper introduces SVAMC's Task Force on Tech Disputes, Tech Companies & International Arbitration, which will conduct systematic, data-driven research to identify the factors shaping technology companies' dispute-resolution choices and develop recommendations to better align arbitration with sector priorities.

DC Circuit says jurisdiction over Russia proper in Crimean expropriation cases

Mealey's WASHINGTON, DC: The District of Columbia Circuit US Court of Appeals on 13 February 2026 issued a consolidated affirmance of two cases in which federal judges found jurisdiction over petitions to confirm arbitral awards collectively worth more than 252US$m in favour of investors whose assets in the Crimean peninsula were found by separate tribunals to have been expropriated in 2014 by the Russian Federation in breach of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT).