Multi-contract and multi-party arbitration

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration

This Practice Note discusses how multiple party (multi-party) disputes and disputes concerning multiple contracts (multi-contract) are dealt with in arbitration proceedings (including international arbitration). Such arbitrations are sometimes referred to as complex arbitrations. The Practice Note includes tips on drafting arbitration agreements in these circumstances and also on conducting multi-party arbitration. The Practice Note discusses how an arbitral tribunal (arbitrator(s)) may be appointed in multi-party arbitration, including how AA 1996 (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; under English law) and major institutional and ad-hoc arbitration rules (those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)) deal with this issue. It also covers the issue of joinder of third parties and the consolidation of arbitration proceedings, and AA 1996 and institutional approaches to these mechanisms. For more detail, see Practice Note: Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration—an introduction.

A quick guide to the arbitration process

This Practice Note provides a quick guide to the main stages

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

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

CJEU Advocate General rules EU Russia sanctions form part of Union public policy

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General Andrea Biondi has delivered an opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel stating that the prohibition on satisfying claims by Russian entities under Council Regulation 833/2014 forms part of European Union public policy. The opinion, delivered on 26 February 2026, establishes that national courts must ensure arbitration awards comply with this prohibition and set aside awards that breach it, acting of their own motion if necessary. The case arose from a 2015 contract between a Belgian company and Russian entity where EU restrictive measures prevented performance, leading to a 2021 Swedish arbitration award ordering repayment of advance payments. Advocate General Biondi concluded that while arbitration proceedings concerning such claims may proceed, tribunals cannot provide favourable responses to Russian entity claims affected by restrictive measures. The opinion emphasises that arbitration tribunals remain bound by EU law and national courts must exercise effective judicial review to prevent circumvention of sanctions prohibitions.

CEPANI publishes 2025 statistical survey showing growth in international arbitration cases

The Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI) has published its 2025 statistical survey, reporting an increase in newly initiated arbitration proceedings and continued growth in international and high-value disputes. Overall, 38% of cases involved at least one international party, including 9% with only international parties (compared with none in 2024), while 53% involved exclusively Belgian parties. Proceedings were introduced in English (47%), Dutch (38%) and French (15%). Expedited cases involving claims below €100,000 accounted for 15% of the caseload, while 46% of disputes involved amounts exceeding €1m, up from 37% in 2024. Brussels was selected as the seat in 76% of cases, with 18% seated elsewhere in Belgium and 6% abroad, namely Luxembourg. CEPANI states that women represented 30% of appointed arbitrators (up from 23% in 2024), with 50% of Appointments Committee appointments going to women. In addition, 18% of appointed arbitrators were under 40, 83% of whom were appointed by the Committee.

Court of Appeal—serving a party not physically within the jurisdiction (Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance as to how practitioners should approach service where the party to be served is not only physically outside the jurisdiction, but has been made the subject of sanctions under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and is an 'excluded person' within section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, with the consequence that they are not entitled to enter the UK. The court held that even where proceedings have been sent to a party’s last known address within the jurisdiction in compliance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which would normally result in valid service having been undertaken, service cannot have taken place by these means in the case of a party not entitled to enter the jurisdiction. The result was that the proceedings had not been validly served. In such cases service must be effected by alternative means or an order sought dispensing with service altogether. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

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

Popular documents

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

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

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are 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

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of