Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and another (‘Cox and Kings’) marks a significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The decision clarifies the applicability of the Group of Companies doctrine in arbitration in India, in multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations. This decision addresses the complexities of consent and the possibility that arbitration agreements may bind non-signatory entities within a group of companies and is therefore important for arbitration practitioners and transactions lawyers to note. Written by Anuradha Agnihotri, of counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills and Didon Misri, associate (India) at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Companies other than small companies or medium-sized companies must state in their accounts whether or not they have been prepared in accordance with ‘applicable accounting standards’. The FRC considers that the Statements of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAPs), Financial Reporting Standards (FRS), Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (FRSSE), and FRC Abstracts issued by the FRC are 'accounting standards' for the purposes of the CA 2006.

This Practice Note sets out the limits imposed on pre-charge bail, when pre-charge bail can be extended and the procedure for doing so. For more information on police bail see Practice Note: Police bail. For guidance on making representations for bail, see Practice Note: How to make representations for bail at the police station. Pre-charge bail (conditional or unconditional) is subject to time limit restrictions. This is known as the applicable bail period (ABP). The ABP is the window during which an officer, or the court, may set and vary bail. Once the ABP has expired there is no power to extend pre-charge bail. The ABP is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and there is statutory guidance that custody officers must have regard to. See the government’s Pre-charge bail statutory guidance. Regardless of which prosecuting authority is conducting the investigation, the custody officer is always responsible for authorising the initial ABP. It’s important to remember that the ABP is different from a suspect’s bail return date. A custody officer

Governing law is the law stipulated in a contract to determine a dispute. Where there is no valid governing law clause, the law to be applied, the applicable law, will be determined in accordance with the relevant regulation, convention, legislation or common law rules.

This Practice Note considers applicable law clauses also known as governing law clauses, proper law clauses or choice of law clauses. It considers the rationale for agreeing an applicable law clause, as well as factors to take into account. It also provides an insight into situations in which parties may change the applicable law clause in their contract as well as whether floating applicable law clauses and stabilisation clauses (specific types of clauses) are valid. For an introduction to applicable law, see Practice Note: Applicable law—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Contracts may provide for a combined jurisdiction and applicable law clause. For guidance on jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—introduction. What is an applicable law clause? An applicable law clause records the parties agreement, made during contract negotiations, as to which country’s laws are to be applied by the courts if a dispute arises between the parties to the contract and the proceedings are commenced requiring the courts to make a determination. The applicable law clause should provide for a national system of law to be applied

Dispute Resolution analysis: the High Court held that Chinese law governed the underlying proprietary rights asserted by victims of a Chinese investment fraud seeking to recover Bitcoin under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The court rejected arguments that English law applied through constructive trusts, equitable tracing or the statutory recovery regime. The judgment clarifies that the applicable law must be identified by reference to the particular legal issues and the transactions giving rise to the claimed rights, rather than the subsequent location of the assets. The applicants must therefore establish proprietary entitlement by reference to Chinese law to obtain a declaration under POCA 2002, s 281.

Arbitration analysis: Ben Love, international disputes partner, and Sagar Gupta, associate, at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP explore the applicable law in investor-state space arbitration, examining public international law, national law and private contracts.

This Practice Note sets out the different applicable law regimes that may be applied by the courts of England and Wales. The applicable regime depends on whether the dispute is contractual or non-contractual and the date that either the contract was entered into or the date of the harmful event (for a non-contractual claim). The regimes set out a series of complex rules to be applied by the courts when determining the relevant applicable law. In the majority of cases, it will be easy to determine whether the claim involves a contractual claim or a tortious claim. In cases in which it is not, it will be important to determine and characterise the obligations in dispute, ie whether they are ‘contractual’ or ‘non-contractual’. This will then determine the applicable law regime to be applied. This may potentially have a determinative effect on a claim if the applicable law under a contractual regime is different to that determined under a non-contractual regime. Note: what amounts to a ‘contract’ for the purposes of applicable law can be open to debate.

One of the significant differences between domestic arbitration and international arbitration is the need to consider which law applies to particular issues. In a domestic arbitration it is very likely that the law of only one jurisdiction will apply to all issues. In international arbitration the position can be very different. The types of applicable law to be considered include: • the law governing the parties’ capacity to enter into the arbitration agreement • the law applicable to the substantive dispute • the law applicable to the arbitration agreement • the law of the seat of the arbitration • the law and procedure of the courts of recognition and enforcement of an award In making their selection of applicable law, parties must be aware of the possibility of conflicts between the various applicable laws. For example, the question of whether a particular dispute is capable of being the subject matter of arbitration may be answered differently by the law governing the substantive dispute, the law governing the arbitration agreement, the law

This Practice Note applies to issues relating to tort where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred on or after 1 May 1996 and before 11 January 2009. This Practice Note sets out Part III of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 and how it applies to tort claims. It only applies to tort events, which occurred prior to 11 January 2009. Where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim fall outside that period, a different applicable law regime will apply. For guidance, see Practice Note: Applicable law—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Part III of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (PIL(MP)A 1995) is found in PIL(MP)A 1995, ss 9–15B. It applies to the UK and deals with the choice of law in tort. The tort equivalent in Scotland is delict. The purpose of the provisions is set out in PIL(MP)A 1995, s 9: • PIL(MP)A 1995, s 9(4) provides that the applicable law, chosen in accordance

This Practice Note discusses selected court judgments which illustrate the application of Part III of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (PIL(MP)A 1995) to tort claims. Judgment and citation Facts Decision Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Inc [2024] EWCA Civ 759 at para [146] The case concerned competition follow-on claims. The Court of Appeal considered that this was a rare case in which the rule in section 11 should be displaced by that in section 12.The court’s analysis was strongly influenced by the Commission decision and collective redress context. The rationale was that the applicable law, as determined under section 11, would result in the law of countries being applied under which restriction of competition occurred. However, in this case, the restriction of competition had already been decided by the European Commission and the issue before the court was a follow-on claim. It was considered that it was ‘substantially more appropriate’ for the issues in the follow-on proceedings to be determined under

This Practice Note explains what is meant by applicable law, also referred to in differing circumstances as governing law, proper law or the choice of law, ie the law used to determine the dispute between parties. The term does not include procedural law. The Practice Note sets out which applicable law regime applies in the courts of England and Wales (English courts). The relevant regime will vary depending on whether the dispute is contractual or non-contractual, and, if contractual, whether the parties agreed the applicable law through a choice of law clause (governing law clause), including whether any such agreement was later varied. Cross-border issues in disputes can arise very easily in a world where international travel, trade and communication is the norm. Contracts are concluded on a daily basis between parties operating in different countries and different continents. Goods and services are delivered across national borders and people have accidents in countries other than those in which they habitually live and work. Where there is a cross-border element to a claim, there are