The tribunal

The tribunal

Tribunal appointment—multiple parties

This Practice Notes provides guidance on how to appoint a tribunal where there are multiple parties involved in the arbitration and the appointment process, including the position on common arbitrators across multi-party and related arbitration proceedings. It covers the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 and arbitration proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules, the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA Rules) and Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (ICC Rules). See Practice Note: Tribunal appointment—multiple parties.

Ensuring the arbitral tribunal's independence

This Practice Note sets out the issues a party appointing an arbitrator should consider when trying to ensure their independence. It sets out points to consider when nominating an arbitrator and provisions in major sets of institutional rules such as those made by the ICC, the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). See Practice Note: Ensuring the arbitral tribunal's independence and impartiality.

Challenging the tribunal's independence

This Practice Note sets out why and how a party might

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

Business interruption insurance—Court of Appeal rules on composite policies and furlough deductions (Bath Racecourse v Liberty Mutual)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal in Bath Racecourse Company Ltd and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and others upheld the Commercial Court’s interpretation of composite business interruption policies, confirming that each insured benefits from a separate indemnity limit. It also confirmed that furlough payments under the CJRS must be deducted as savings. This decision has wide implications for coronavirus (COVID-19) BI claims, and permission has been granted to the Supreme Court (UKSC/2025/0068) on the furlough deduction issue, which may impact the outcome of thousands of claims. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, independent counsel and Arbitrator.

USA—Russia says it never agreed to arbitrate with Ukrainian utility

Law360: Russia has asked the DC Circuit to overturn a decision ordering it to face litigation by a Ukrainian utility to enforce a nearly US$219m arbitral award the company won after its Crimean assets were seized, saying it never agreed to arbitrate with the company.

The English Court of Appeal affirms the correct approach to treaty interpretation under customary international law (Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates)

Arbitration analysis: This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of Chapter 11 of the free trade agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (the ‘Treaty’). In April 2018, Elliott Associates, LP (‘Elliott’) commenced arbitration proceedings, alleging that the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) had breached specific provisions of Chapter 11 of the Treaty. Korea objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claim fell outside the scope of Chapter 11, including its dispute resolution provisions. However, in June 2023, the tribunal upheld Elliott’s claims and awarded damages against Korea. In response, Korea applied to the High Court in July 2023 seeking to set aside the arbitral award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The application was dismissed by Justice Foxton of the Commercial Court in August 2024, resulting in the present appeal. In overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal (COA) clarified the correct approach to interpreting treaties. It affirmed that interpretation must align with the principles established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which reflect customary international law. Drawing from Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, the COA emphasised that treaty terms must be construed by reference to their ordinary meaning, in context, and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty without drawing from English authorities as to whether particular issues ‘will be jurisdictional for section 67 purposes’. The COA concluded that, on a proper interpretation, Section A of the Treaty imposes specific jurisdictional requirements that must be satisfied, for an offer to arbitrate under Section B of Chapter 11 to arise. Accordingly, the High Court was found to have erred in holding otherwise. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Naa Amorkor Amarteifio, partner at AB & David Africa, Ghana.

Enforcing the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration (Star Hydro Power Ltd v National Transmission and Despatch Company Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Pakistan intended to undermine an award in a London seated arbitration. The court emphasised the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration for the purposes of a challenge to an award, noting that a ‘challenge’ to an award under the New York Convention is a shield against an application for recognition and enforcement of the award, not a sword with which the award may be cut down. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.