This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England & Wales, Scotland, France, Hong Kong, Israel and the US, updates from CAM, PCA, ICSID, QMUL, China and Qatar, and analysis of the regulatory landscape for cryptoassets in global finance. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) overruled an ICC tribunal hearing a dispute between a Pakistani company and a Bermuda company pertaining to hydrocarbon exploration in Pakistan and held that contrary to the tribunal’s earlier order, the tribunal did indeed have jurisdiction. The issue arose out of certain standard agreements which expressly provided for international arbitration in certain instances and domestic arbitration in other instances but contained no express provision regarding disputes between a foreign working interest owner (WIO) and a domestic WIO. The same documents though contained a catchall provision referring to certain statutory rules which in turn contained a catchall domestic arbitration provision. The issue was therefore whether to interpret an ambiguous set of standard form documents in favour of foreign arbitration or domestic arbitration. The tribunal had held in favour of domestic arbitration even though the England and Wales Court of Appeal had earlier interpreted the same standard form documents as providing for foreign arbitration. The SICC reversed on the basis that the tribunal had failed to correctly appreciate the intent of the parties. Written by Feisal Hussain Naqvi, senior partner at Bhandari, Naqvi & Riaz (Lahore); associate member at 3 Verulam Buildings (London).

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India has attempted to put at rest controversy over the extraordinarily high fees that arbitral tribunals in a typical Indian domestic ad-hoc arbitration (ie, an ad-hoc arbitration between two Indian parties where the seat is in India), are known to charge. The court has upheld the salutary principle of party autonomy through the agreement between the parties and the statutory guidance in the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘the Act’) (as inserted by the 2015 Amendment to the Act) in this matter, while denuding the arbitral tribunals of any power to unilaterally fix or revise their fee. The court, while making certain directions for the determination of the tribunal’s fees, has advisedly steered clear of making any directions in respect of any international commercial arbitration (ie, an arbitration involving at least one non-Indian party or a non-Indian seat) or an institutional arbitration. Written by Madhur Baya, principal at LexArbitri, India and managing director, LexArbitri (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Singapore

Arbitration analysis: While Hong Kong has recently enacted legislation to allow outcome related fee structures in relation to arbitration, and despite the fact that contingency fee arrangements are common in many jurisdictions around the world, such arrangements remain illegal in respect of Hong Kong litigation. In BB v KO, the Hong Kong court was asked to consider the validity of an arbitration award entered pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a lawyer's retainer agreement. The engagement in question contained: 1) a contingency fee arrangement; and 2) concerned multiple pieces of cross-border litigation and included reference to litigation in Hong Kong. The application before the court was an application to set aside the arbitration award made in Chicago under Illinois law awarding the law firm USD50m in fees pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement. One of the grounds for set aside was the fact that, although the principal litigation to be dealt with under the engagement was in the Nevada courts, there was reference to strategic advice in relation to Hong Kong litigation. In exercising her discretion not to extend time the Honourable Justice Mimmie Chan concluded that in examining whether or not a relationship offended the rules of champerty the totality of the facts must be examined to ask whether they pose a genuine risk to the court's processes. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of international arbitration, Greater China, at Stephenson Harwood.

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (HKCFI) stayed an application to set aside the enforcement of an arbitration award and remitted the matter to the arbitrator under Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (as enacted by section 81 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609 (‘AO’)), to give the arbitrator an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings and reconsider questions of illegality under Hong Kong law. Under the AO, no appeal of decisions of fact or law made by an arbitrator is permitted (unless Schedule 2 applies). G sought to have the enforcement of the award set aside as the law relating to public policy in Hong Kong changed a few days before the Award was handed down. Although it was contended by N that this set aside application was a thinly veiled appeal, the judge held that the court was entitled to review the Award, not because of any error in fact or law, but the supervisory court had a duty to consider whether the enforcement of the Award was contrary to public policy. In doing so the court is bound to consider public policy as recognized at the date of review. The court may be compelled to set aside an award if the court considers that it would be manifestly unjust and against the public policy of Hong Kong to enforce the Award, whether by reason of disproportionality or the weighing up of different public policies or interests involved. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration Greater China, Stephenson Harwood.

This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on commencement and transitional provisions see Practice Note: Arbitration Act 2025 commencement and transitional provisions.  This Practice Note provides an introduction to arbitration and its key features, with a particular focus on arbitration under the law of England and Wales, including the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025 and came into force on 1 August 2025. Arbitration is a form of final and binding dispute resolution presided over by an appointed arbitral tribunal (one or three arbitrators, typically) acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Arbitration is, generally speaking, founded on party agreement (the arbitration agreement), and regulated and enforced by national law and national courts. In choosing arbitration, parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of litigating in court. The result of an arbitration is, usually,

Arbitration analysis: In its 17 October 2025 judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court rejected the Russian Federation’s final attempt to annul the Yukos arbitral awards worth over US$50bn. The court upheld the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s finding that Russia’s belated allegation of fraud (bedrog) by the Yukos shareholders was inadmissible for violating the ‘good procedural order’ rule (Article 130(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). Because that procedural assessment is immune from appeal under Article 130(2), the Supreme Court could not review it. The decision confirms that, under Dutch law, annulment proceedings cannot be used to reopen facts that were (or could have been) raised earlier. It consolidates the Netherlands’ reputation as a predictable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction where procedural discipline prevails over litigation tactics. Written by Flip Petillion, FCIArb, partner at PETILLION (Brussels); Deputy Judge at the Brussels Court of Appeal; Independent International Arbitrator (in arbitrations administered by, eg, ICC, ICDR, SIAC, WIPO, CEPANI).

Arbitration analysis: A dispute arose as to the appointment of arbitrators and the constitution of the tribunal. The claimant's position is that the respondent failed to appoint its arbitrator within time and the first appointed arbitrator should be confirmed as sole arbitrator. The respondent claims that its arbitrator was appointed within time, if not it seeks an extension of time for doing so. The respondent has also sought to challenge the appointment of the first arbitrator on the grounds of apparent bias. The English court's decision concerns applications for disclosure of (1) communications between the respondent and their putative arbitrators; and (2) information regarding the identity of the claimant. The court applied the following principles: (1) The applicant must demonstrate that the arbitration claim has a real prospect of success; (2) The documents sought must be strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the arbitration claim; (3) In exercising its discretion, regard must be given to the overriding objective with particular regard to the context of arbitration. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration, Greater China at Stephenson Harwood.

In the context of arbitration proceedings, this Practice Note introduces: • the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) regime which is applicable in the EEA and was formerly applicable under UK law until the end of the Brexit implementation period (11 pm UK time on 31 December 2020), and • the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) regime (applicable under UK law from the end of the Brexit implementation period) Where there is no need to distinguish the two regimes, this Practice Note refers to both as the ‘GDPR’ for convenience. When considering the general processing of personal data, both the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) should be read together as both sets of provisions directly apply. Practitioners will find it most helpful to take the UK GDPR as their starting point and then consider the specific supplementary provisions of the DPA 2018. This Practice Note considers the UK and EU GDPR regimes, the

[Title of the report] 1 [Name of arbitral institution (if any) and Case Number] 2 [Full details of the parties in the arbitration: Claimant(s) and Respondent(s)] 3 [Expert report of [Name] or [Company]] Table of contents [Insert

This Practice Note is a horizon scanner for key forthcoming developments in arbitration globally. It identifies anticipated dates, where available, and provides commentary on the following categories of development: • legislation: ◦ Bills in progress ◦ Acts not in force, partially in force or subject to staged introduction • consultations • other key developments This horizon scanner does not cover past developments, such as legislation fully in force or final judgments. For details of past developments in the field of Arbitration globally, see Practice Note: Arbitration—tracker. Practice Note: AA 1996 s 9—case tracker records and summarises UK case law developments relating to applications made to the courts of England and Wales to stay litigation proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), and links out to relevant analysis. This Practice Note does not separately cover reports and related materials published by UNCITRAL Working Group II: Dispute Settlement or UNCITRAL Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform. For dedicated coverage see Practice Notes: UNCITRAL Working Group II—reports and UNCITRAL Working Group III—reports. Legislation Bills

Arbitration-related legislation—England and Wales • Arbitration Act 1996, as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 • Administration of Justice Act 1970 • Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR)