Japan's enforcement framework for arbitration awards provides a clear and predictable system for parties seeking to enforce arbitration awards. The statutory framework is based on international best practice, with Japan's judicial approach generally exhibiting a pro-arbitration stance in enforcement proceedings. Legal framework for arbitration award enforcement in Japan Applicable laws and Conventions Japan is a member State of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), having acceded to it on 20 June 1961. This early adoption demonstrates Japan’s longstanding arbitration-friendly attitude. However, Japan has made a declaration under Article I.3 of the Convention to apply it only to awards made in other contracting states, limiting its scope to reciprocal enforcement. The Japan Arbitration Act (JAA) (Act No. 138 of 2003, amended by Act No. 53 of 2023) governs all arbitrations seated in Japan, whether domestic or international. The JAA adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law, including its 2006 amendments, aligning Japan’s arbitration regime with

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), on an application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), can be enforced through court mechanisms. The Court of Appeal held that, where a decision is declaratory in nature, it is not susceptible to enforcement under section 176C of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002). As consequence, if parties wish to enforce a decision of the FTT as an order to pay a specific sum, they must commence further proceedings in the County Court for judgment for the debt; the Court of Appeal having distinguished between sums which are ‘payable’ and sums which are ‘due’. Written by Camilla Waszek, associate at JB Leitch Ltd.

Arbitration analysis: In Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028, the Federal Court of Australia considered Spain’s plea of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in proceedings to enforce intra-EU International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards in light of Spain’s argument that the awards sought to be enforced were not binding and enforceable against Spain because intra-EU investment arbitration is not permitted under EU law. Contrary to Spain’s arguments, the court held that the awards were binding under Article 53 of the ICSID Convention and enforceable in Australia under Article 54 because Spain waived its immunity from enforcement jurisdiction by entering into the ICSID Convention. The court rejected Spain’s arguments that EU law could prevent enforcement, and also confirmed that the assignment of two awards to Blasket did not affect their enforceability. The decision affirmed the primacy of the ICSID Convention as implemented in Australian law on questions of enforcement, and rejected both the relevance and the merit of Spain’s EU law objections in this context. Written by Marina Kofman, principal at Kofman Arbitration.

Financial Services analysis: Sara George, partner and consulting editorial board member of Lexis®PSL Financial Services, Rachpal K Thind, partner, Christopher Lock, counsel, Jonathan Lafferty, senior managing associate, and Louise McCarthy, associate at Sidley Austin LLP, examine the UK’s new approach of strict liability to financial sanction breaches and sets out the powers provided to HM Treasury (HMT) and its Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (EC(TE)A 2022 ).

Arbitration analysis: Historically, the UAE onshore courts have applied strict signature requirements for arbitral awards because they view it as a matter of public policy, with arbitrators needing to sign both sections—the reasoning as well as the dispositive. Additionally, the mainland courts maintained a firm stance that only signatories to an arbitration clause could be bound by it. A Moroccan ice cream manufacturer and distributor, Usine Pingouin (‘Pingouin’) successfully enforced a Paris-seated ICC arbitral award in the UAE against a Unilever branch. The case is important for its implications on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE, especially in terms of signature requirements and the binding effect of arbitration clauses on non-signatories. Written by Othmane Saadani, partner (Arbitration & Dispute Resolution) at Bin Sevan Advocates.

Family analysis: How should courts deal with the enforcement of a maintenance order registered in a magistrates’ court and when can a magistrates’ court make a committal order for non-payment?

Construction analysis: This judgment followed the hearing of the claimant’s application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision made by Mr Latham dated 5 March 2024 in favour of the claimant subcontractor against the defendant contractor. The defendant resisted enforcement, inviting the court to exercise its discretion to set off or withhold enforcement of Mr Latham’s award on the basis of a second adjudication decision made by Mr Lord on 14 April 2024. The defendant did not assert a defence as a result of a jurisdictional challenge or a breach of natural justice against enforcement of the decision. The issues to be determined were: (1) As the defendant has not issued enforcement proceedings in respect of the second adjudication, should the court consider exercising its power to order a set off? (2) Should the court permit a set off on the facts of this case? The defendants set off defence failed and lost on both issues. Written by Simon Tolson, senior partner, Fenwick Elliott LLP.

CLAIM NO: [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (kBD) OR In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] ] [specify division] [specify specialist court] BEFORE [insert judge’s name] IN AN ARBITRATION CLAIM DATE: [insert date] Between -and- AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Between -and- _______________________________________________________________________ Draft ORDER _______________________________________________________________________ UPON

[Filed on behalf of the] Claimant [Insert initial and surname of witness and number of witness statement] [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] [insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] Claim no.: [insert claim number] In the high court of justice business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (kBD) OR Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] in AN Arbitration claim And in the matter of an Arbitration Between [insert Claimant’s name]        Claimant and [insert Respondent’s name]        Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [insert witness’s name] ______________________________________________________________________ I,

The N8 Claim Form (arbitration) is required for an application for permission to enforce an arbitral award in the same manner as a judgment or order (and also for judgment to be entered in terms of the award)

Form and contents of award Under Macau Arbitration Law (MAL, art 64.1), an award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators. Furthermore, the law provides that in case of arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of all members of the arbitral tribunal shall suffice, provided that the reason for any omitted signature is stated (MAL, art 64.2). As to the content of the award, the law imposes two requirements on the arbitrator(s). The first one consists of stating the reasons upon which the award is based. This requirement can be circumvented if the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given or if the award is made pursuant to an agreement made by the parties under article 63 of MAL. The second requirement consists of stating the date on which the award was rendered, as well as the place of arbitration in accordance with article 49(1) and (2) of MAL. Other obligations are imposed by the law on arbitrator(s)

Introduction On 26 May 2023, the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 (AMA) was passed, repealing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998 (ACA). The new law (AMA) addresses several gaps in the old law (ACA) and resolves various controversial decisions of the Nigerian courts concerning arbitration. This Practice Note also highlights the important changes introduced by the new law. Status of arbitral awards Under Nigerian law, an arbitral award is considered final and binding. Section 31 of the ACA made this clear under the old law and Section 57(1) of the AMA reaffirms this status by explicitly recognising the binding nature of both domestic and foreign arbitral awards on the parties. It provides that: ‘An arbitral award shall, irrespective of the country or state in which it is made, be recognised as binding, and on an application in writing to the Court, be enforced by the Court…’. The form and contents of arbitral awards