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.

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted anti-suit injunctions restraining Mainland Chinese proceedings brought in connection with joint venture agreements providing for Hong Kong arbitration. The court held that applicants need establish only a prima facie case that a valid arbitration agreement covers the dispute, rather than a high degree of probability, preserving the tribunal’s primary role in determining jurisdiction. Adopting a substance-over-form approach, the court held that statutory derivative and unfair competition claims could not circumvent the agreed arbitral forum. Significantly, relief may also extend to proceedings against non-signatory affiliates where those proceedings undermine the arbitration agreement. The decision strengthens protection against parallel litigation and provides practical guidance on obtaining anti-suit relief in Hong Kong. Produced in partnership with Andrew Rigden Green, partner, Watson Farley & Williams LLP of Hong Kong.

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.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved two applications under Section 39(2) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the release of a lien on an arbitral award and revision of the fees payable to the arbitrator by the applicant. The applicant had failed to pay its portion of the arbitrator's fees, as a consequence of which the arbitrator exercised a lien over the arbitral award, which meant that the applicant did not receive the arbitral award and could not challenge it. The applications were dismissed. The court held that the fees fixed by the arbitrator could not be called into question by the applicant and that they had been fixed by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings and thus accepted by the applicant. The court also noted that the arbitrator's fees were payable notwithstanding a moratorium order issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the applicant (Moratorium Order) and that the fees of the arbitrator, who issued the arbitral award prior to the Moratorium Order, should be paid in priority over other debts in the insolvency process. The court observed that it was in the interest of the applicant to pay the fees so that it could challenge the arbitral award and if arbitrators are not paid their fees on account of an order of moratorium, that will defeat the purpose of arbitration because competent arbitrators would be averse to accepting arbitral appointments in disputes involving companies facing financial crises. Written by Anuradha Agnihotri, Of Counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills and Didon Misri, associate at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd (‘Aiteo’), an African energy company, challenging four partial awards under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Aiteo alleged serious irregularity based on apparent bias by one of the tribunal members, Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (‘DEG’). The court found that there was apparent bias which constitutes serious irregularity, but emphasized that Aiteo had to demonstrate substantial injustice for the challenge to succeed. Ultimately, the court remitted one of the four partial awards for reconsideration while dismissing the application concerning the other three. This judgment underscores critical issues related to the appearance of bias in arbitration, particularly regarding arbitrators' disclosure obligations. It highlights the importance of transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and the duties of parties in the selection of arbitrators. The decision serves as a guide for practitioners on how to effectively challenge awards under s. 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act and addresses the nature of arbitral institutions' decisions. Written by Toheeb Amuda, managing partner at Lawvocate Attorneys.

Arbitration analysis: The Republic of Cameroon sought annulment of the final award of 22 September 2021 made in favour of Garoubé on the ground that the chairman of the arbitral tribunal was pro-investor biased as he did not disclose all his prior appointments in state/investor arbitration disputes, and because he displayed ‘hostility’ against Cameroon during the proceedings. This case relates to the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality taken in its two branches, the arbitrator’s duty to disclose all situations that ‘in the eyes of the parties’ may cast doubt on the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality, and on the actual behaviour of the arbitrator that is susceptible of establishing a bias which in turn shows his absence of impartiality. In its decision of 3 October 2023, the Paris Court of appeals rejected the Republic of Cameroon’s application. The court held that the claim for lack of disclosure was inadmissible because the Republic of Cameroon had not raised the alleged irregularity before the arbitral tribunal itself, and regarding the alleged hostile conduct of the chairman that circumstances that support its case, taken individually or together, are not sufficient to substantiate its complaint in this respect. This decision illustrates the rigour with which the conditions necessary to call into question the impartiality of arbitrators is assessed by French Courts and the need for the parties to provide evidence of tangible elements in support of their claim. To have a chance to prevail, the circumstances which ‘in the eyes of the parties’ are likely to vitiate the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator in their own mind must be assessed with the court's ‘spectacles’. Written by Christophe Dugué, Independent Arbitrator and Counsel at Christophe Dugué Law, Paris.