Arbitration analysis: In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v India, the English Commercial Court decided a challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) against an UNCITRAL arbitral tribunal’s decision to decline jurisdiction in arbitral proceedings under the 2013 UAE-India Bilateral Investment Treaty [BIT]. The case was concerned with a decision of the governments of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh and of Ras Al Khaimah ‘to establish Alumina and Aluminium Industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh’ and with the losses allegedly suffered by the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority as the result of the Government of AP’s cancellation of a bauxite supply agreement. Referring to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the provisions of the India-UAE BIT and Czech Republic v DIAG Human SE, the Commercial Court held that in deciding whether particular assets, such as shares in a company, could be considered an investment for the purposes of a BIT, courts should adopt a holistic approach and consider the quality of the investment as a whole rather than its different components in isolation. Written by Martin Lau, professor of South Asian Law (SOAS), barrister (Essex Court Chambers).

Arbitration analysis: In a complex dispute stemming from multiple interlinked contracts, multiple arbitrations and a settlement agreement arising from a hydrocarbons project in Cameroon, the English Commercial Court has maintained an anti-suit injunction preventing legal proceedings from being pursued in Cameroon and mandating the discontinuation of ongoing actions. Despite challenges disputing the validity of the relevant arbitration clause, arguments regarding the court's jurisdiction, and assertions that court proceedings in Cameroon sought only interim relief (not inherently incompatible with arbitration), the English Commercial Court affirmed its jurisdiction and determined that the arbitration clause in the settlement agreement was binding and had indeed been breached. This case not only underscores the court's dedication to enforcing arbitration agreements and preventing parties from pursuing parallel legal actions in violation of such agreements, but it also carries practical implications for complex international commercial disputes involving multiple contractual structures typically present in the oil and gas sector as well as the importance of ensuring consistency in such provisions. Written by Clément Fouchard, partner, and Adam Calloway, jurist at Reed Smith LLP, Paris.

Arbitration analysis: The owners of two vessels applied under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) for urgent injunctive relief requiring the redelivery of the vessels. As the owners had referred the dispute to arbitration, but the application was not brought with the consent of the tribunal or agreement of the parties, the judge had to decide whether to grant relief under AA 1996, s 44(3) (under which, if the case is one of urgency, the court may make such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets). In rejecting the application on the basis of insufficient urgency, the judge considered the extent to which the court's powers under AA 1996, s 44(3) extend to orders for mandatory specific performance which may result in final relief being granted by a court rather than an arbitral tribunal. Written by Liz Kantor, professional support lawyer at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v Mrs Xiaomin Zhang, the English Commercial Court has rejected a challenge to an arbitration award on the grounds of public policy. Although the applicant argued that the terms of the underlying contract were unfair for the purposes of English consumer legislation, the court held that there was no ‘close connection’ with the UK and therefore that the legislation did not apply. Charlie Morgan, partner, and Elizabeth Kantor, professional support lawyer both of Herbert Smith Freehills examine the case.

Arbitration analysis: In the latest instalment of the litigation relating to the clean-up costs arising from the sinking of the MV Prestige oil tanker, the English High Court has upheld an award of compensation by a sole arbitrator for contravention by the French State of its equitable obligation to arbitrate disputes against the insurer of the vessel, France having pursued direct action claims against the insurer before the Spanish courts. However, the court held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against France restraining it from pursuing enforcement of the Spanish judgment against the insurers, in view of the State’s immunity from injunctive relief. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu, avocate à la Cour and solicitor-advocate, Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: The English Court of Appeal (CA), considering several arbitral awards relating to the clean-up costs arising from the sinking of the MV Prestige oil tanker, has confirmed that they created an issue estoppel preventing recognition of a conflicting Spanish court judgment in England. However, no remedies were available to prevent the judgment’s enforcement abroad: while the French and Spanish States were subject to an equitable obligation to arbitrate their claims based on the conditional benefit principle, the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief due to rules of state immunity, or damages in lieu. Nor could equitable compensation be ordered in the alternative to neutralise the effect of the judgment’s enforcement. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu, Avocate à la Cour and solicitor-advocate, Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Private Client analysis: The court held that the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJ(RE)A 1933) could not, or could not usually, be used to register judgments arising out of claims in foreign courts regarding succession. The court therefore refused to register an Italian judgment regarding succession, holding that it fell within the exception in FJ(RE)A 1933, s 4 regarding the ‘administration of estates’. The Italian Court did not have jurisdiction over the estate because it comprised immovable assets in England and because the deceased died domiciled in England so that succession to his moveable assets was governed by English law. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: In this case, in which Mr Justice Foxton of the English Commercial Court delivered the main ruling on 8 March 2024, Foxton J held that a new ground of challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) with respect to the second claimant’s proper nationality (albeit arguable in principle as a ground to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction) was raised late by the Czech Republic in circumstances in which the Czech Republic, applying reasonable diligence, could have identified this ground at the time of the BIT arbitration. As a result, the new ground of challenge was time-barred by AA 1996, s 73(1) and the court rejected the Czech Republic’s request for permission to amend. Written by Dr Gordon Blanke, Founding Principal at Blanke Arbitration, Dubai/London/Paris.

IP analysis: In March 2018, the second defendant, Ms Chloe Wilkinson, set up a YouTube channel under the name ‘DissociaDID’. Ms Wilkinson is affected by a condition known as dissociative identity disorder (‘DID’), which is characterised by an individual taking on two or more alternative and distinct personality types. The first defendant, Dissociadid Ltd, is a company set up by Ms Wilkinson. Ms Wilkinson uploaded videos on DID and herself on to her YouTube channel in an attempt to raise awareness and provide support to others who suffer from this condition. The channel became successful and by May 2021 it reached an excess of 1 million subscribers. By 2020, Ms Wilkson’s gross earnings were approximately £105,000. In March 2020, the claimant, Mr Sergio Mendes Costa, reached out to Ms Wilkinson to collaborate on her project. Mr Costa and Ms Wilkinson worked on nine literary works. While there is no dispute that eight of those works were works of joint authorship (‘Joint Works’), the ninth piece of work (the ‘Disclaimer’) became a point of dispute with Mr Costa claiming that he was a joint author of the Disclaimer and Ms Wilkinson alleging that Mr Costa’s contribution was too insubstantial to have made him a joint author. His Honour Judge Hacon came to the overall conclusion that Mr Costa was not a joint author of the Disclaimer. On the issue of counterclaim the judge held there was no contract between Mr Costa and Ms Wilkinson. Had the contract existed, it would not have contained the implied terms alleged by Ms Wilkinson. Notwithstanding this, the judge found that Mr Costa intended to cause harm to the defendants—harm generated by videos vanishing in large numbers from the defendants’ channel. Written by Anamitra Mukhopadhyay, solicitor at JMW Solicitors LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court upheld enforcement of a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award requiring payment under English law International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) transactions despite sanctions-related objections. Mrs Justice Dias rejected applications to adjourn or set aside enforcement, holding that although sanctions regimes engage important public interests, ancillary immunity provisions such as Article 46A of the Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 2019 do not carry the same public-policy weight as primary sanctions prohibitions. The judgment reinforces the strong policy favouring finality and enforcement of arbitral awards under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), clarifies the limited role of Henderson v Henderson principles at the enforcement stage, and confirms that jurisdiction-specific defences available to a principal debtor will not necessarily assist a guarantor. Produced in partnership with Vivek Kapoor, barrister and arbitrator 39 Essex Chambers.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has received Royal Assent, marking a significant reform of local government structures and the statutory embedding of devolution across England. The legislation establishes strategic authorities, granting elected mayors expanded devolved powers over transport, planning, housing and economic regeneration, alongside requirements to produce local growth plans and consider health inequalities in policymaking. It also introduces governance and accountability mechanisms, including Local Scrutiny Committees for mayoral authorities and a new Local Audit Office to oversee council finances.

Planning analysis: The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. The Act does not rewrite planning law, but sits alongside the emerging strategic planning regime under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. The headline planning points are: the extension of London-style mayoral intervention powers outside London, the widening of mayoral delivery tools such as mayoral development orders, mayoral development corporations and mayoral CIL, and a narrower final brownfield provision requiring future regulations for draft spatial development strategies to prescribe the desirability of prioritising previously developed land.