PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL [insert name and address of expert] [insert date] Dear [insert name of expert] [insert case heading] Instruction to act as expert witness in arbitration between [insert name of parties and any case number/reference] We act for [insert name of instructing party (or parties)] who [is OR are] involved in arbitration proceedings with [insert name of opposing party or parties] relating to [insert brief description of dispute] (the Arbitration). Thank you for your agreement to act as an expert witness for [insert name of instructing party]. This letter sets out the basis on which [insert name of instructing party] is instructing you to act as an expert witness in the Arbitration. The Arbitration arises out of a contract between [insert instructing party name] and [insert party name] dated [insert date] (the Contract). Under the Contract, the parties agreed that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration in accordance with [[insert relevant legislation] OR [insert relevant arbitration rules]]. The seat of the arbitration is [insert legal seat, eg London, England or Paris, France]. [The Arbitration is taking place in [insert venue

This Practice Note provides an introductory guide to arbitration, arbitration lawyers and the work they undertake, as well as key topics and concepts relevant to such lawyers. It is aimed at trainee-level and newly-qualified lawyers, as well as others who are new to arbitration as a practice area or method of dispute resolution. This Practice Note also provides links to relevant LexisNexis® sources and materials. What is arbitration? Put simply, arbitration is a method of dispute resolution. Arbitration takes various forms and is practised across a wide range of sectors and industries, which give rise to many different types of disputes. While different forms or types of arbitration typically have key features in common, they can also be quite different from each other. In practice, the term ‘arbitration’ typically refers to a private form of final and binding dispute resolution presided over by an appointed arbitral tribunal acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Arbitration is, in most cases, founded on party agreement or mutual consent (the arbitration agreement), frequently a clause in a standard form or other contract, and

The following arbitration resources, providing useful practical commentary, legislation, rules and guidance for arbitration lawyers, whether in private practice or in-house, are available in Lexis+® UK. They are referenced and linked to in the arbitration content in Lexis+® UK. Please note, however, the titles listed can only be accessed with the relevant Lexis+® UK subscription(s). Commentaries Title Summary Who should use this resource? Butterworths Challenges in Arbitration A detailed analysis of the ways in which arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, awards and enforcement may be challenged in England and Wales. It covers the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), relevant institutional rules and case law, and provides practical guidance on bringing and defending challenges. It also compares the English approach with other legal systems, particularly those based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Arbitration lawyers advising on or conducting challenges to arbitrators, awards or enforcement, including applications under AA 1996. The Civil Court Practice 2026 (The Green Book) An authoritative and comprehensive guide to bringing, defending and appealing civil proceedings. It contains the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, practice directions, court guides

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Commercial Court refused to stay or restrain two London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitrations pending determination of applications under sections 24 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Party A had sought what it described as a ‘stay’ under CPR 3.1(2)(g), contending that the arbitrations should not proceed while the court considered an application to remove the sole arbitrator and a serious irregularity challenge. Mr Justice Butcher held that CPR 3.1(2)(g) applies only to court proceedings and cannot be invoked to stay arbitral proceedings. Properly characterised, the relief sought was an injunction restraining further pursuit of the arbitrations. The judge doubted whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such relief, given s 1(c) (the principle of non-intervention) and s 24(3), which expressly permits arbitral proceedings to continue while a removal application is pending. In any event, even if such jurisdiction existed, it could only be exercised in exceptional circumstances (for example, where continuation would be vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable), and no such circumstances were made out. The decision underlines the strict limits on judicial intervention in ongoing arbitrations and confirms that the mere existence of s 24 or s 68 applications / challenges will not justify interrupting the arbitral process. Practitioners should note the court’s clear refusal to assume any supervisory role over arbitral procedure prior to an award. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Arbitration analysis: Practitioners should note that a challenge to an award on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal ought to be issued almost immediately when it believed it had grounds for objecting. Otherwise there are tangible risks. In the present case, the court found that, on the precise facts, the claimant was precluded by section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) from raising its objection to the partial award. Time-scales can be relatively short. In this case, the claimant issued its Claim Form on 27 January 2022. The court found that by 13 January 2022 Radisson knew there were grounds for objection and that it could have sent a letter raising the objection immediately following its discovery of the Word Document but for strategic reasons it chose not to do so. This meant that Radisson failed to show that it did not have knowledge for the purposes of AA 1996, s 73 of the grounds for objection at the time it continued to take part in the proceedings. AA 1996, s 73 applied to a partial award. Written by Hamish Lal, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

This Practice Note tracks key developments in arbitration globally. It covers consultations, legislative developments, legislation in force, and other significant developments. It also signposts related commentary and analysis, including: • legislation in force • consultations • other key developments This tracker does not cover future developments. For forthcoming developments, see Practice Note: Arbitration—horizon scanner for key future developments in arbitration globally. 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

A person appointed by or on behalf of the parties to an arbitration to resolve their dispute. An arbitrator may be the sole arbitrator in an arbitration or may be one of a panel of arbitrators (generally, three).

Arbitration analysis: In CNG v G [2025] HKCFI 3598, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance rejected an application to remove the presiding arbitrator of an HKIAC tribunal on grounds of bias. CNG alleged hostility, prejudgment of claims, disregard for due process, and even that the arbitrator fell asleep. Justice Mimmie Chan applied the established ‘real possibility of bias’ test and ruled that complaints arising before 25 June 2024 had been waived due to late objection. The remaining allegations did not meet the standard. The court held that firm case management and critical remarks are not evidence of bias, and that claims of inattentiveness were unproven. The decision reinforces Hong Kong’s pro-arbitration stance, confirms the strict consequences of delay in raising objections, and shows that removal of arbitrators will be ordered only in clear and exceptional cases. Written by Julien Chaisse, professor & RGC senior research fellow at School of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

Law360: Embattled arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa has lost an appeal challenging his conviction in Spain for contempt of court after he ordered Malaysia to pay US$14.9bn to the heirs of the last sultan of Sulu in an unusual, high-stakes arbitration stemming from a 19th-century land deal.

Law360: Embattled arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa has been convicted in Spain for contempt of court for his role in ordering Malaysia to pay US$14.9bn to the heirs of the last sultan of Sulu following a dispute stemming from a 19th century land deal, according to a 8 January 2024 announcement.

Arbitration analysis: Following the setting aside of an interim arbitral award by the Brussels Court of Appeal, the arbitral tribunal sought to have the annulment decision overturned. The Belgian Supreme Court denied the request by the arbitral tribunal, ruling that arbitral tribunals have no legal remedy against judgments setting aside their award. Interestingly, the arbitral tribunal had been summoned to join the setting aside proceedings before the Brussels Court of Appeal. After it had annulled the interim arbitral award, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the request for joinder was inadmissible. Both decisions seem to confirm the principle endorsed by the Belgian Constitutional Court that only parties to an arbitration are entitled to seek setting aside of an award and that third parties lack standing thereto, even if they have an interest in the outcome of the arbitral proceedings or can be directly affected by it (…).* However, the Belgian Supreme Court decision goes further than that—arbitrators are not just any party, as they are directly affected by the annulment of their arbitral award. Written by Flip Petillion and Jan Janssen, advocaten, counsel, and arbitrators at PETILLION.

Law360, London: A majority of international arbitrators and counsel in a recent study said they expect to use artificial intelligence for search, data analytics and document review more frequently over the next five years, according to an annual report from White & Case LLP, though there is 'strong resistance' to its use for tasks necessitating judgment as well as hesitancy over transparency, bias and training involved.