Arbitration analysis: The present case concerned the global rejection of various document production requests as a so-called ‘fishing expedition’ by the arbitral tribunal without any specific further explanations on the individual requests. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed an application to set aside the award for an alleged infringement of the right to be heard. From a substantive point of view, it considered that overly broad phrasing of requests in terms of ‘any and all’ documents without specific explanations on the relevance of these documents for the decision may be globally rejected as ‘fishing expedition’ and no further reasoning is required. From a formal point of view, the Swiss Federal Tribunal considered that the applicant failed to insist on its requests or to place an objection after the president of the tribunal had given the reasoning of the ‘fishing expedition’ during the hearing. The Swiss Federal Tribunal also noted that both parties confirmed after the hearing that they had no objections on the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. For these reasons in particular, the setting aside application was dismissed. Written by Dr. Simon Gabriel, partner at Gabriel Arbitration AG.

ArbitralWomen has announced its new board of directors for the 2024-26 term, which includes 18 candidates. Rebeca Mosquera of Reed Smith LLP in New York, will lead the board as President and Katherine Bell of Schellenberg Wittmer in Zurich, will be Vice President.

In legal practice, arbitrary describes a decision or action taken without a rational basis, relevant reasons or fair process-essentially, one resting on whim or caprice rather than lawful, evidence‑based judgment.The term is not usually defined in legislation; its content is developed by case law, including European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence applied via the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) and the ECHR Act 2003 (Ireland). In judicial review across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, arbitrariness commonly signals illegality for irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) or lack of proportionality, taking into account irrelevant factors, ignoring relevant ones, inconsistency, or failure to give reasons.Under Article 5 ECHR, detention must not be arbitrary: it must be lawful, foreseeable, carried out in good faith, and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. Similar non‑arbitrariness standards govern interferences with privacy and property, policing powers (e.g. stop and search), and immigration detention.In private law, a contractual decision‑maker’s discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily; under the Braganza duty, it must be honest, rational and based on relevant considerations.Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland. Practically, arbitrary conduct risks quashing orders, declarations, release from detention, damages (e.g. false imprisonment), and costs.

The Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) has published its inaugural two‑year report covering the period 2024–26. The report emphasises arbitrateAD’s strategic vision, commitment to transparency, institutional independence and the elevation of dispute resolution standards in Abu Dhabi. The report also details arbitrateAD’s role in hosting high‑profile events, establishing strategic partnerships and launching modern, comprehensive arbitration rules along with a secure digital administration platform, docketAD, to facilitate communication and case management. It notes a diversified caseload with a majority of arbitration cases alongside initiatives such as the launch of new rules for adjudicator appointment and mediation and an increased geographic reach reflected by a growing proportion of proceedings in Arabic.

Arbitration analysis: The court granted an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) to stay a claim to appoint a Judicial Trustee under the Judicial Trustees Act 1896 to replace the defendants as trustees of a family trust. The court held that the disputes between the parties as to the administration of the trust and the conduct of the trustees were within the scope of an arbitration agreement. It rejected the claimant’s arguments that, nevertheless, his claim was incapable of arbitration because it was a trust dispute and because the appointment of a Judicial Trustee is a remedy that only be granted by the court. The court’s decision establishes that, in appropriate cases, trust disputes can be resolved by arbitration. Written by Elizabeth Weaver, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn.

Arbitration analysis: This article considers the opportunities and challenges posed by blockchain’s wider adoption. Lee Bacon, Nigel Brook and James Contos of Clyde & Co turn to the resolution of blockchain related disputes.

Arbitration analysis: crypto assets and the crypto market are becoming increasingly popular among business and consumers. This rise in popularity raises questions as to the best method of dispute resolution for crypto assets. Noor Kadhim, consultant for Gateley Legal and founder of Kadhims, explores how well placed arbitration is to resolve this kind of dispute.

Background to the ADCCAC The Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) is the arbitration 'arm ' of the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce & Industry which operates as a voice of the Abu Dhabi business community. It is an autonomous institution. The ADCCAC was established in 1993 to deal with matters relating to local and international commercial conciliation and arbitration. Its arbitration regulations (the 2013 Regulations) were revised and updated in 2013 (effective 20 October 2013 regardless of when the arbitration was commenced) bringing them more into line with international arbitration practice than the previous rules which contained a number of features peculiar to the ADCCAC. Under the Transitional Provisions (arts 40–42) of the 2013 Regulations, the 1993 Arbitration Procedural Rules were repealed. Arbitrations begun under the 1993 Regulations continue subject to the 2013 Regulations. This may present some technical issues but these will disappear as the old cases come to a conclusion. The 1993 Regulations had not been amended since their introduction. The procedures were unique in a number of

Generally, a private form of final and binding dispute resolution by an appointed arbitral tribunal acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Arbitration is, generally, founded on party agreement (the arbitration agreement), and regulated and enforced by national courts.

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) have previously set aside an arbitral award made in favour of the first and second defendants upon the plaintiff's application. Seeking leave to appeal against the CA judgment, the first and second defendants asserted that (i) there was a dispute arising out of or relating to an agreement between them and the plaintiff, which should have conferred jurisdiction on the arbitrator, and (ii) the arbitral award of a negative declaration should not be contrary to public policy. CA dismissed the defendants' application for leave to appeal on the basis that there was no issue of great general or public importance (GPI), or of any importance beyond the parties concerned which required determination by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA). After applying well-settled and unchallenged principles to the facts of the case, the CA found no dispute between the parties which could invoke the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and there was an abuse of process by seeking relief through arbitration, which was contrary to public policy. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner head of International Arbitration, Greater China at Stephenson Harwood.

Arbitration analysis: This is a Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) decision regarding a challenge to an arbitral award, in which the appellants claimed that the arbitration tribunal (Tribunal) lacked jurisdiction due to the incomplete fulfillment of pre-arbitration conditions specified in the written agreement between the parties. The HKCFA held that arbitrators have final authority to determine whether all pre-arbitration conditions set out in a pre-arbitration clause have been satisfied, the Tribunal had considered and determined that these conditions were met therefore judicial interference was unwarranted. The majority of the HKCFA confirmed that the question of the fulfilment of pre-conditions was a question of admissibility rather than jurisdiction. This decision confirms the role of arbitrators in determining their own competence and narrows the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards. Since Hong Kong has adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on arbitration (Model Law) through the Arbitration Ordinance, this decision also carries significance for other Model Law jurisdictions. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration Greater China at Stephenson Harwood, Hong Kong.

The Arbitration Act 1996 governs the legal interpretation of arbitration agreements.