Arbitration clauses and agreements provide for disputes to be dealt with by an appointed arbitral tribunal and can arise in both domestic and international contexts. For more information on arbitration agreements, see the following Practice Notes: • Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation • Arbitration agreements—the in writing requirement • Arbitration agreements—content • Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention • Will my arbitration agreement be upheld? • Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales) Example of a domestic arbitration clause—Chartered Institute of Arbitrators The following is a simple model arbitration clause recommended by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb): ‘Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be determined by the appointment of a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties, or failing agreement within fourteen days, after either party

The New York Convention and arbitration agreements The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) sets out the requirements for valid arbitration agreements, which Contracting States to the New York Convention undertake to recognise. The mandatory nature of the requirement to recognise and enforce valid arbitration agreements has been confirmed by legislation and decisions in most jurisdictions. The scope of the New York Convention was initially intended to be limited to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards alone, but a specific provision on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements was included during the final few weeks before the New York Convention was adopted (and when the text was largely agreed), which explains why this aspect of the New York Convention is not reflected in the treaty’s title or in other provisions of the New York Convention where one may have expected reference to have been made had the drafters had more time. For guidance on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards pursuant

This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Separability of arbitration agreements in international arbitration, which considers the doctrine from an international perspective. The doctrine of separability under English law An arbitration agreement is to be treated as separate from the main agreement in which it is contained and, as such, survives the termination or invalidity of the main agreement—this is known as the ‘doctrine of separability’. The doctrine of separability is enshrined in English law pursuant to section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996): 'Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitration agreement which forms or was intended to form part of another agreement (whether or not in writing) shall not be regarded as invalid, non-existent or ineffective because that other agreement is invalid, or did not come into existence or has become ineffective, and it shall for that purpose be treated as a distinct agreement.' The

This Practice Note considers the ‘in writing’ requirement for arbitration agreements with a particular focus on arbitration agreements pursuant to the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout), although this issue is also discussed from an international perspective and includes some comparative examples from other jurisdictions. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation. An agreement in writing Under Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as is the case in many jurisdictions internationally, an arbitration agreement must be in writing and any oral arbitration agreement will not be enforced in accordance with the statutory regime (however, see the discussion below regarding the circumstances when an oral agreement can constitute an agreement in writing under the AA 1996). The rationale underpinning this rule of law is that the arbitration agreement provides the foundation for the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the extent of the jurisdiction must be clear to the parties and the tribunal. The ‘in writing’ requirement is also considered to be justified

(26 January 2026, 7:17 AM EST)—By José Feris and Natalia Rodriguez Alvarez

Arbitration analysis: P.R.I.M.E. Finance (the Hague-based Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance) returned to the Netherlands and held its first Amsterdam conference at the headquarters of De Nederlandsche Bank (Dutch Central Bank) on 16 May 2025. Conference report written by Deannie Yap, manager and senior legal office P.R.I.M.E. Finance Secretariat.

This Practice Note considers confidentiality and arbitration under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as a convenient shorthand). For many parties, an important reason for agreeing to arbitrate, rather than litigate before national courts, is the understanding that arbitration is private and that disclosed documents and documents generated for the purposes of the arbitration (including the award) are typically subject to a blanket of confidentiality. For example, in the QMUL/White & Case 2010 survey, ‘Choices in International Arbitration’, 62% of respondents said that confidentiality was very important to them in international arbitration. In the 2015 survey, ‘Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration’, confidentiality and privacy were in the top five most valuable characteristics of international arbitration. The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is notably silent on confidentiality in arbitration, although the drafters of the AA 1996 did consider setting out the principles of confidentiality and ultimately found the task too difficult and controversial (see paragraphs [11]–[17] of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law—Report on the Arbitration

Impact of national insolvency on domestic or foreign arbitration (England and Wales) This Practice Note considers the impact of insolvency proceedings initiated in England and Wales on arbitration commitments involving an insolvent party. The IBA toolkit on insolvency and arbitration This Practice Note is based on the National Report of England and Wales which forms part of the IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration (IBA Toolkit), and is reproduced with permission. The IBA Toolkit provides guidance to parties, counsel, and arbitrators in situations where a party to arbitration proceedings is also subject to insolvency proceedings in one or more jurisdictions. The IBA Toolkit contains a number of National Reports in addition to the one on which this Practice Note is based. For the avoidance of doubt, the National Report upon which this Practice Note is based is not intended to provide legal advice applicable to specific fact situations. Non-application of EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency following Brexit This Practice Note

Arbitration analysis: This case concerned a request for partial annulment of an arbitral award that had recognised the set-off of mutual claims under a civil works contract, based on a contractual clause, in a context where one of the parties had entered judicial reorganization proceedings in Brazil. The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held that arbitral tribunals lack jurisdiction to determine the set-off of pre-petition claims. Even if set-off is contractually provided for and may have occurred before the filing, only the reorganisation court may validate it. While the decision directly limits the role of arbitration in such contexts, the STJ’s reasoning also applies to judicial proceedings outside the insolvency court. Any recognition of set-off involving pre-petition credits must be made within the reorganization forum. The ruling has important implications for parties dealing with financially distressed companies in Brazil, requiring a strategic reassessment of how mutual obligations are structured and how risks are managed in light of potential insolvency. Written by Christian Lopes, partner at VLF Advogados, and Maria Eduarda Boson, associate at VLF Advogados.

Arbitration analysis: Thus far, there have been very few judgments concerning digital assets and therefore little has been done to legally classify them. However, the decision of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court has appeared to endorse common law principles determining digital assets to be a ‘third kind’ of property. Written by Sean McCarthy of ArbTech.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an opposed application to stay the proceedings of a minority oppression claim commenced in the High Court of Malaya pending the resolution of the dispute between the parties in arbitration. In allowing the stay application, the judge addressed what constituted steps in the proceedings within the context of section 10 of the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005; considered the issue of the arbitrability of oppression claims; and focused on the impact of a corresponding and potentially conflicting jurisdiction clause in the underlying shareholders agreement on the arbitration agreement. Written by Asya Jamaludin, partner at CMS Cameron Mckenna Nabarro Olswang (Singapore) LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) challenging an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction over a shareholder dispute involving allegations of oppressive and discriminatory conduct. The court held that such claims while potentially relevant to a future winding-up petition under the Cayman Islands Companies Act, were both arbitrable and within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Drawing on the Privy Council’s reasoning in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp, the court clarified that arbitral tribunals may determine factual disputes underlying such petitions even if statutory remedies remain solely within the Cayman courts. This decision confirms Hong Kong’s alignment with a pro-arbitration position in corporate disputes involving offshore structures. Written by Julien Chaisse, Professor at City University of Hong Kong School of Law.