Arbitration analysis: If an arbitral tribunal issues a so-called ‘negative jurisdictional decision’, denying jurisdiction on the ground that there is no valid arbitration agreement, the question often arises whether such a decision may be challenged in annulment proceedings before a local court. On 21 April 2023, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a decision whereby an arbitral tribunal seated in the Netherlands declares itself incompetent due to the lack of a valid arbitration agreement (Manuel García Armas et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No 2016-08) cannot be set aside on the basis of Article 1065(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The decision of the Supreme Court underlines the potential consequences of agreeing to an arbitral seat in a jurisdiction that does not permit the review of a negative jurisdictional ruling. Written by Stephan den Hartog, partner at AZHA Avocats-Attorneys-at-Law.

Arbitration analysis: It is established in the Netherlands case law that a court decision granting leave to enforce a foreign arbitral award cannot be appealed. In a recent case before the Dutch Supreme Court, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) sought to challenge this principle. It did not succeed: despite NIOC’s arguments, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its settled case law. Written by Hans Biezenaar, senior associate at Houthoff.

A mechanism used to deal with a deadlock situation, usually after it has been escalated without reaching a resolution. This is less common than Russian roulette and Texas/Mexican shoot out and involves both parties submitting sealed bids for the lowest price at which each would sell its shares to the other. The party with the lowest bid sells it shares to the other party at that price.

Arbitration analysis: In these enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention of two arbitral awards rendered in the same Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) arbitration between a Dutch claimant (the Claimant) and the Iraqi Basrah Oil Company (Basrah Oil), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal took an unusual approach when granting leave for enforcement of an arbitral award. The request by the Claimant for exequatur was only partially granted and the exequatur counter-requested by Basrah Oil was denied, even though there was no basis for refusing exequatur under Article V of the New York Convention. This approach appears to be novel, in that it resembles a set-off of claims in a material sense, but procedurally is the result of a lack of legal interest in obtaining a full exequatur from the Dutch courts. Written by Hetty de Rooij, lecturer and external-PhD researcher at Leiden University.

Arbitration analysis: The Amsterdam Court of Appeal allowed a request for the recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands of an arbitral award against Ghana of USD 134,348,661, even though the request did not meet all of the formality requirements of Article IV(1)(b) NYC. The enforcement request was incomplete as the applicant did not submit (i) the original arbitration agreement, or (ii) a certified copy of the original arbitration agreement. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal still granted the requested exequatur because it ruled that Article IV(1)(b) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Awards (NYC) does not provide for a sanction when those formalities are not met. Other evidence in support of the validity and contents of the arbitration agreement convinced the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that it could grant the request despite this shortcoming. Written by Hetty de Rooij, lecturer and external PhD-researcher at Leiden University.

MLex: A group of Dutch news media outlets has formed the country's first national collective database to be licensed for training artificial intelligence, a move which aims to avoid them having to sue AI companies for copyright violations or pursue exclusive licensing agreements with them.

Law360, Expert analysis: The Hague District Court order dated 19 March 2026 marks a further and legally delicate phase in the arbitration award enforcement campaign arising from Spain's renewable energy reforms passed during the 2010s. The order did not concern the merits of the Energy Charter Treaty dispute, nor did it constitute an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) annulment decision. Its operative significance lay in granting leave to enforce in the Netherlands the award arising from Eurus Energy Holdings Corp v Kingdom of Spain. According to the analysis, with contributions from Josep Galvez, Barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, the decision highlights the distinction between recognition and coercive execution of ICSID awards, the continuing importance of sovereign immunity and execution-immunity rules under Dutch law, and the growing significance of asset-specific enforcement strategies in cross-border sovereign arbitration disputes.

Law360: The sweeping reform of the €2trn Dutch pension sector from 2026 could have knock-on effects for bond markets and Eurozone banks, a credit rating agency warned on 9 September 2025.

Private Client analysis: This was an appeal from the Wolverhampton Court of Protection (COP) regarding the duties of a person who provides a certificate under paragraph 2(1)(e) Schedule 1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) when a donor executes a lasting power of attorney (LPA). Mrs Justice Lieven DBE upheld the decision of His Honour Justice McCabe that the two LPAs executed by the donor, for property and affairs and also health and welfare, were invalid. The friend of the donor, X, who provided the certificate had not addressed the three requisite issues set out in paragraph 2(1)(e), namely the donor’s understanding of the scope of the instrument and authority conferred by it, lack of fraud or undue pressure and that there was nothing else which would prevent an LPA from being created by the instrument. As the COP judge had held ‘This opinion is one of the requirements for the creation of an LPA, and what is required is the provision of an opinion, not merely the witnessing of a signature’. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

The senior accounting officer (SAO) regime was introduced by Schedule 46 to the Finance Act 2009 (FA 2009) with the aim of ensuring that qualifying companies have adequate tax accounting arrangements in place so that the correct tax liabilities are reported to HMRC. The regime applies to financial years beginning on or after 21 July 2009. To comply with the SAO provisions, an SAO must in respect of the qualifying company or companies for which the person is the SAO: • carry out the main duty during each financial year (or at least for that part of a year) for which the person is the company's SAO, and • provide a certificate to HMRC after the end of each relevant financial year about the appropriateness of the tax accounting arrangements of the relevant company or companies in question This Practice Note: • details the specific duties and responsibilities that form part of an SAO's main duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the company establishes and maintains appropriate tax accounting arrangements (ie accounting

This Practice Note examines the nature and extent of the duties of an expert witness when preparing to give and giving evidence within their expertise, based on the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and case law. It looks at the expert’s overriding obligation to the court and what happens if an expert fails to comply with his duties. Key principles for experts CPR 35.3 makes clear that an expert is under a duty to assist the court on matters within their expertise. That duty overrides any obligation to the instructing party. The most frequently cited statement of an expert’s duties is in the judgment of Cresswell J in National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co (the Ikarian Reefer) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68 (not reported by LexisNexis®): • expert evidence should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to the form or content by the demands of litigation • expert witnesses should provide independent assistance to the court by way of an objective, unbiased opinion

The protection of confidential information is a fundamental feature of the solicitor-client relationship and a core professional principle. Solicitors also have a duty to disclose to their clients information of which they are aware and which is material to their client’s matter. There are only limited exceptions to the two duties. The duties of confidentiality and disclosure can come into conflict, eg where you simultaneously owe a duty of confidentiality to client A and a duty of disclosure to client B in relation to the same information. The SRA Codes of Conduct provide that you must not act for a client where that client has an interest adverse to the interests of another client for whom you hold confidential information that is material to the matter unless you have: • informed client consent to you acting and any measures you have taken to protect the information, or • put in place effective measures so there is no real risk of disclosure of the confidential information If a confidentiality or disclosure issue arises, or there