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 publishes 2025 caseload statistics reporting second-highest annual registrations

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has published its 2025 caseload statistics, reporting that as of 31 December 2025 it had registered 1,085 arbitration and conciliation cases under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules since 1972. The latest edition of the 'ICSID Caseload – Statistics' records 63 new cases in 2025, the second-highest number registered in a calendar year. ICSID states that most new cases (58%) invoked its jurisdiction through bilateral investment treaties, followed by state-investor contracts (15%) and domestic investment laws (6%). Of the new cases, 56 are ICSID Convention arbitrations, six are Additional Facility arbitrations and one is a conciliation. Regionally, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for the largest share of new cases in 2025 (24%), followed by South America (20%) and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (19%). By sector, mining represented 24% of new cases, oil and gas 21% and construction 16%. Of arbitrations concluded in 2025, 67% were decided by tribunals and 33% were settled or otherwise discontinued. Among cases decided by tribunals, 53% upheld investors’ claims in part or in full, while 31% rejected all claims on the merits; 11% declined jurisdiction and 5% were dismissed for manifest lack of legal merit. 60% of tribunal-decided cases resulted in no damages being awarded to investors. Women accounted for 30% of the 240 appointments made to ICSID cases in 2025.

A potential trap for the unwary—the importance of post-award decisions and statements by arbitral tribunals following the decision in Seacrest Group Ltd (in provisional liquidation in Bermuda) v BCPR Pte Ltd

Arbitration analysis: The decision of the Commercial Court (Mr Justice Trower ) in Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR Pte Ltd included a number of findings that are likely to be of importance to arbitration practitioners. One that may have a significant impact is the court’s findings in relation to the status of statements made by a tribunal after it has rendered its award, in particular the relevance and admissibility of such statements as evidence in the context of a challenge to an arbitration award. Written by Rupert Hamilton, barrister at Twenty Essex Chambers.

California district court rules on challenges to AAA award alleging arbitrator’s use of AI (Lapaglia v Valve)

Arbitration analysis: A consumer filed for arbitration under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules against Valve, parent of the Steam digital gaming platform, alleging violations of federal and state unfair competition laws. The arbitrator dismissed all claims and issued a zero-dollar award. After the award was confirmed, the consumer sought to vacate it, arguing, inter alia, that the arbitrator delegated authority to AI. The court did not rule on the merits and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow, the court noted that the FAA established substantive rules governing arbitration agreements but did not itself confer federal jurisdiction or create a federal cause of action. Parties seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitration award would therefore need to demonstrate an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Since no such basis was established, the court dismissed the case. Written by Gizem Alper, International Legal and ADR Consultant.

Court of Appeal clarifies approach to conflicting dispute resolution clauses (Tyson v GIC Re, India)

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of conflicting dispute resolution clauses. Where inconsistent provisions (for example, conflicting arbitration and jurisdiction clauses) are contained within the same document, the document must be read as a whole, with effect given to all clauses if possible. However, this principle has limited application where the conflicting clauses are in different documents and governed by a hierarchy provision or 'confusion clause'. In that instance, (as in this case), where the clauses are inconsistent the hierarchy clause will apply. This significant judgment highlights the value of a clearly drafted express hierarchy provision in cases of conflict. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper.