Some people believe that the returns from investments can be explained by economic factors (see capital asset pricing model).

Arbitral awards are the decisions of an arbitral tribunal that resolve claims in an arbitration, including final, partial and interim awards, and consent awards recording settlement. In practice they are the instrument that determines liability, remedies (such as damages, declarations or specific performance), interest and costs.The legal framework is statutory: Arbitration Act 1996 (England & Wales and Northern Ireland), Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, and, in Ireland, the Arbitration Act 2010 implementing the UNCITRAL Model Law. Across these jurisdictions, awards are usually required to be in writing, signed and dated, identify the seat, give reasons unless waived, and may be corrected or clarified.Awards are final and binding, subject only to limited court supervision. Typical routes are: challenge for lack of substantive jurisdiction and for serious irregularity; and, in England & Wales and Northern Ireland, a possible appeal on a point of law (unless excluded). In Scotland and Ireland, there is no general appeal on a point of law; in Ireland, set-aside mirrors Model Law Article 34. Strict time limits apply (for example, 28 days for challenges in England & Wales/Northern Ireland; three months to set aside in Ireland).Domestic awards can be enforced as judgments with the court’s permission. Foreign awards are recognised and enforced under the New York Convention, subject to limited defences. Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland.

Arbitration analysis: The English High Court has held that Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention does not constitute a prior written agreement to submit to the jurisdiction for the purpose of section 2 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978). In reaching that decision, the court declined to follow a body of English and international authority on whether the ICSID Convention constitutes a waiver of immunity. The court also found that the enforcement court will not be bound by an ICSID tribunal’s own finding that it had jurisdiction for the purposes of the ‘arbitration exception’ in SIA 1978, s 9. Nevertheless, the court held that an application to register an ICSID award does not engage the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the particular regime that applies pursuant to the Arbitration (International Investments Disputes) Act 1966 and the Civil Procedure Rules, and therefore declined to set aside the order registering the award. The court also held that the claimants had breached their duty of full and frank disclosure by failing to draw arguments on immunity to the court’s attention at the without notice stage, for which the Claimants were penalised in costs. Written by Christopher Walke, senior associate at Gresham Legal, solicitors for Zimbabwe, instructing Salim Moollan KC and Andris Rudzitis (both Brick Court Chambers), and Benedict Tompkins (Essex Court Chambers) (with Quinn Smith of GST LLP, also advising).

The arbitrator(s) appointed on or behalf of the parties to an arbitration to resolve their dispute. A tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators (generally, three).

The Arbitral Tribunal has issued its award in an arbitration under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait. Ukraine initiated the proceedings on 16 September 2016 by serving a notification and statement of claim on the Russian Federation. The award will be published on the Permanent Court of Arbitration case repository once the parties have completed the designation of any confidential information in the award.

Arbitration analysis: In Green Network SPA v Alpiq, the Cour de Cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision, rejecting Green Network’s attempt to annul an ICC arbitral award. Green Network argued that the arbitral tribunal violated its rights of defence by rejecting a document production request and closing the proceedings on the same day. The company contended that as the arbitral award was issued in violation of its right to a defence, its recognition is contrary to international public policy. The Cour de Cassation found that the arbitral tribunal acted within its discretion and had provided justification in the final award for rejecting the document production request. The court emphasized that the annulment judge’s role in annulment proceedings is limited to assessing whether the award violates international public policy, not to re-evaluate the arbitral tribunal’s procedural decisions. This decision reinforces the French courts’ pro-arbitration approach and highlights the limited grounds on which arbitral awards can be challenged. Written by Anna Guillard Sazhko, independent arbitrator and counsel, Qualified in France and Ukraine.

Arbitration analysis: The court remitted an award back to a tribunal for reconsideration because the tribunal had rejected a claim for damages on the basis of an argument that had neither been raised by the parties nor put to them in the course of the arbitration. The court was satisfied that the tribunal had erred in law and so had the claimant been provided with an opportunity to comment on the point, it would have had the opportunity to persuade the tribunal that the point was wrong. The claimant had therefore suffered a substantial injustice. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister at Serle Court.

Arbitration analysis: The case involved a challenge to a decision by an arbitral tribunal which had rendered a ‘nil’ award in a set of claims and counterclaims concerning an expansion of a plant at a project site in Rajasthan. The application for setting aside the arbitral award was granted and the court provided helpful guidance on the importance of reading/understanding the basic contractual framework between the parties to avoid an arbitral award being vulnerable to challenge. The decision signifies the importance of arbitrators to fundamentally understand the nature of the relationship/framework between the parties before engaging in the merits of the dispute. The judge referred to five decisions of the Supreme Court of India, including the recent decision of DMRC Ltd v Delhi Airport Metro Express, to re-iterate that an interference with an arbitral award is justified if the interpretation accorded to the contract is unreasonable and ignores the specific terms of the contract. Written by Muizz Drabu, associate at Stewarts.

This Practice Note considers the different types of arbitration awards and their requirements where the seat of the arbitration is, England, Wales or Northern Ireland and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) governs the arbitration. Types of arbitral award In arbitration proceedings, an award is a formal document setting out an arbitral tribunal’s decision. There are two basic types of award in English law: • a final award (finally disposing of some or all issues in dispute)—see: Requirements of an award • a provisional award dealing with issues pending a final award (eg an order for a payment of money between the parties, disposition of property between the parties or an interim payment on account of costs) pursuant to AA 1996, s 39—see Practice Note: AA 1996—provisional awards Unless the parties otherwise agree, all awards will be treated as final—see AA 1996, s 58(1). The arbitrators will not, therefore, have the power to issue provisional awards unless the parties confer it on them—see AA 1996, s 39(4)—which is frequently done

The major arbitral institutions The major arbitral institutions are accustomed to administering disputes in the technology, media and telecoms (TMT) sector. According to the 2016 International Dispute Resolution Survey by Queen Mary University of London and Pinsent Masons—'Pre-empting and Resolving Technology, Media and Telecoms Disputes', the most used arbitral institutions are the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by a large margin (with 64% of the respondents using it on TMT disputes in the previous five years), followed by World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) (38%), particularly for IP disputes, and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) (29%). The most preferred arbitral institutions by users who participated in the 2021 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case: ‘Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World’ were the ICC (57%), followed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) (49%), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) (44%) and the LCIA (39%). Judicial, Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), based in the US and with an office in London, is a well-recognised arbitral institution with

Arbitration analysis: In this case, Mr Justice Henshaw upheld challenges brought under section 67 (substantive jurisdiction) and section 68 (serious irregularity) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘Act’), as well as a related appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. The judgment addresses the scope of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, in particular the circumstances in which a tribunal will be entitled to determine the meaning and effect of a different contract over which it does not otherwise have jurisdiction. Written by Douglas Grant, barrister at 7 King’s Bench Walk.

Arbitration analysis: Investment arbitrations are regularly seated in The Hague. In one such case brought by an investor against Venezuela, the Court of Appeal of The Hague reaffirmed that negative jurisdictional decisions (whereby an arbitral tribunal declines jurisdiction) are not subject to review in setting aside proceedings before the Dutch courts. This is consistent with a 2023 judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court, which confirmed the continuing validity of this rule of Dutch law (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:636). As a result, investors who receive a negative jurisdictional ruling in an investment arbitration, as well as other parties in Dutch-seated arbitrations in which the arbitral tribunal declines jurisdiction, cannot seek the setting aside of such rulings by the Dutch courts on any of the setting aside grounds. Although the 2015 amendments to the Dutch Arbitration Act recognise arbitral awards denying jurisdiction as arbitral awards for the purpose of the Act, this did not alter the longstanding rule of Dutch arbitration law that a party can only challenge an arbitral tribunal's decision upholding jurisdiction in setting aside proceedings before the Dutch courts. Written by Hetty de Rooij, lecturer and external PhD researcher at Leiden University.