Arbitration analysis: In Case No 136 of 2025, the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court held that a subcontractor’s AED 103m claim reacting to two Abu Dhabi projects was inadmissible due to a valid and timely invoked arbitration agreement in the subcontract. The court rejected attempts to circumvent arbitration by joining the project owner on the basis of signed undertaking letters, finding that the letters did not create an independent obligation separate from the subcontract framework. The court found that the arbitration clause prevented it from accepting jurisdiction, and that any recourse against the owner was premature pending the arbitration. The decision is a clear reaffirmation that UAE onshore courts will not accept jurisdiction where the arbitration defence is raised at the appropriate time. The decision also emphasizes the UAE courts’ growing reluctance to allow procedural structuring, such as by joinder of non-signatory parties, to bypass agreed arbitral mechanisms. To be clear, the court did not address whether an arbitral tribunal might ultimately decide that the project owner itself is bound by the arbitration agreement. By characterising the claim against the project owner as premature, the court implicitly contemplated that such a claim could be brought before it at the appropriate stage. Conversely, the court’s express concern to avoid fragmentation of disputes may be a relevant consideration for the tribunal if and when it is asked to determine any application to join the project owner to the arbitration. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at Reed Smith LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Judicial Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a company's articles of association did not apply to a dispute concerning payment for shares following an investor's withdrawal from the company. However, the court also held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim concerned the redemption of shares in a commercial company, a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Paris Commercial Court (Economic Activities Court). The decision illustrates the distinction between the scope of an arbitration clause and the separate question of jurisdiction in corporate disputes.

Arbitration analysis: The Chambéry Court of Appeal confirmed that a broad ICC arbitration clause deprived the French commercial court of jurisdiction over tort claims which, although framed as extra-contractual, were in substance inseparable from the parties’ contractual relationship. The court reaffirmed the principle of compétence-compétence under the French Code of Civil Procedure and emphasised the expansive interpretation given to arbitration agreements, extending to related tort claims, post-contract disputes and, in appropriate cases, non-signatories. It also held that, even if certain allegations arguably fell outside the arbitration agreement, the Commercial Court of Chambéry lacked territorial jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention. The respondents’ cross-claim for damages for abusive proceedings was dismissed.

Arbitration analysis: In Petroleum Exploration (PVT) Ltd v Frontier Holdings Ltd and another , the Commercial Court dismissed a section 67 challenge to a partial final award (the Award) in a London-seated ICC arbitration. The Award was made pursuant to an arbitration clause in a 2016 settlement agreement between Petroleum Exploration (PVT) Limited (PEL), Frontier Holdings Ltd (FHL), and Spud Energy Pty Ltd (Spud) (the Settlement Agreement). In the Award, the arbitrator had granted declaratory and monetary relief against PEL in relation to its forfeiture of FHL’s ‘working interests’ in certain oil and gas blocks in Pakistan (the Oil and Gas Blocks). In the section 67 challenge before the Commercial Court, PEL argued that only an arbitral tribunal appointed under earlier agreements between the parties had jurisdiction to make certain of the orders in favour of FHL under the Award. Applying well-established principles of contractual construction and the Fiona Trust presumption (addressed below), His Honour Judge Pelling KC dismissed PEL's challenge to the Award. The judge held that the broadly worded arbitration clause in the Settlement Agreement was intended to provide a ‘one‑stop’ forum for all disputes arising out of that agreement. Clear language would be required to displace that presumption, and there was none. Written by Ana Margetts, associate, and Shai Wade, head of International Arbitration, at RPC.

Arbitration analysis: A determination was made by the Federal Court clarifying that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA 1985) and the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) represent distinct and autonomous legislative frameworks. This determination possesses considerable import for legal practitioners specialising in arbitration. It was judicially confirmed that an award creditor is endowed with a strategic election: to pursue the direct enforcement of an arbitral award via the provisions of the AA, or alternatively, to seek enforcement of a ‘confirmation judgment’ procured from a reciprocating jurisdiction by means of REJA. The finding clarifies that the AA does not operate to displace REJA; moreover, the utilisation of the REJA framework does not constitute the practice described as ‘judgment laundering.’ Furthermore, judicial affirmation was given to the applicability of the distinct defences delineated within REJA, in contradistinction to the ‘passive remedies’ available under the AA. Concurrently, a standard of minimal curial review was endorsed, thereby precluding a comprehensive de novo re-hearing concerning matters of jurisdiction or fraud that have been subject to prior adjudication. Written by Ahmad Dzulhaziq bin Ahmad Mahmod, senior legal associate at Messrs Che Mokhtar & Ling.

Arbitration analysis: On 3 February 2025, Professor Emilia Onyema, Dr. Amel Makhlouf, Noor Al Rayes, Dr Hassan Arab and Nasser Salem assembled virtually under the aegis of the SOAS Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Centre (SADRC). The webinar sought to illuminate the evolving contours of arbitration and mediation in Algeria and Libya, two jurisdictions where historical legacies and modern challenges collide in the intricate tapestry of international dispute resolution (IDR). Eymaan Zubair recounts this webinar considering arbitration and mediation in Algeria and Libya.

The International Arbitration Act 1974 (IAA 1974), which is the legislative regime governing international commercial arbitration in Australia, implements: • the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) without reservations (Sch 1) • the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law 1985 as amended in 2006 (the Model Law) (Sch 2) • the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention (Sch 3) The provisions of IAA 1974, which reflect pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement policies, apply to all international arbitral proceedings which have an Australian seat and to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. IAA 1974 was amended in 2015 following the Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Act 2015. Further amendments were made in October 2018 by the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Cth) (2018 Amendments). This Practice Note incorporates those amendments (where relevant). IAA 1974, Pt II (ss 3–14) relates to the recognition and enforcement

Recognition and enforcement of foreign awards The International Arbitration Act 1974 (IAA 1974), which is the legislative regime governing international commercial arbitration in Australia, reflects pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement policies. IAA 1974 implements the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) without reservations. Enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements and awards, are governed by IAA 1974, Pt II. The Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Act 2015 amended IAA 1974, Pt II in respect of the enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements and awards. The amendment removed IAA 1974, s 8(4) which prevented the enforcement of arbitration awards made in countries that are not party to the New York Convention, unless the person seeking to enforce the award is domiciled or ordinarily resident in Australia or in a Convention country. This means that any arbitral award can be enforced in Australia, regardless of whether or not it is an award made under the New York Convention. Further amendments were

This Practice Note provides introductory guidance on London venues where arbitral hearings may be held, and related matters. It may be read in conjunction with Checklist: Pre-hearing considerations in arbitration proceedings—checklist. London, England is a leading seat of international arbitration as well as a popular location for conducting in-person and hybrid hearings in arbitration proceedings, whether those proceedings are domestic or international, London-seated or otherwise. London is, as a result, home to many organisations that promote the settlement of international disputes through arbitration and provide services related to arbitration, including the provision of hearing facilities. On 28 January 2026, the International Arbitration Centre Alliance (IACA) launched the IACA Global Passport, an initiative intended to support practitioner mobility by providing recognised members with reciprocal access to lounges, meeting and breakout facilities and related services across participating hearing centres worldwide, including the International Dispute Resolution Centre (London). It is usual for parties to an arbitration to agree with their arbitral tribunal the physical location for any (in-person or hybrid) hearings in the proceedings and

The Mauritian legal system is a hybrid system of laws, which amalgamates both the French civil law and the British common law practices, characterised by a duality of concepts ie procedural law in criminal and civil litigation is mainly English whereas substantive law is based on the French Napoleonic Code. The Mauritian legal system possesses characteristics of both civilian and common laws, which it has adapted to its own specific needs to form a distinct corpus of Mauritian law. This is reflected by the different regimes which govern domestic arbitration and international arbitration. While the provisions for domestic arbitration are contained in the Civil Procedure Code 1808 (Code de Procédure Civile) (CPC), international arbitration is governed by the International Arbitration Act 2008 (IAA 2008), which is based on UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law). This Practice Note provides an introduction to how key arbitration concepts are treated under Mauritian law. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: International arbitration in Mauritius and Enforcing arbitral awards in Mauritius. Domestic

This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Arbitration in New Zealand—recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996 The Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) sets out the rules that govern both domestic and international arbitrations in New Zealand. References in this Practice Note to sections, Sch 1 and its articles and Sch 2 and its clauses are to those in the Act. As set out in s 5, the purposes of the Act include to encourage the use of arbitration and to promote consistency between international and domestic arbitral regimes in New Zealand. The spirit of the Act also seeks to promote party autonomy to settle disputes by arbitration. The Act does this by limiting the role of the New Zealand courts in reviewing and setting aside arbitral decisions and facilitating the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards. The Act achieves these purposes by enacting a set of rules applying to both

The recognition and enforcement of both New Zealand and foreign arbitral awards in New Zealand is governed by Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), Sch 1, Arts 35 and 36. These articles essentially incorporate the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) into New Zealand law. In accordance with this regime, an arbitral award must be recognised as binding by a New Zealand court, irrespective of the country in which it was made. Accordingly, arbitral awards made overseas are recognised and can be enforced in New Zealand. Recognition of a foreign award is an automatic consequence of the provisions of Art 35 of Schedule 1 and does not require the award to be entered as a judgment of the New Zealand court. Accordingly, where a party seeks to defend new proceedings on the basis of a cause of action or issue estoppel arising from a prior arbitral award, the party may simply plead