Introduction The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration entered into force on 1 June 2026 (the ‘2026 Rules’). They replaced the Rules of Arbitration that had entered into force on 1 January 2021 (the ‘2021 Rules’). Since the adoption of the first ICC Rules of Arbitration in 1922, the Rules have undergone successive revisions—notably in 1955, 1975, 1988, 1998, 2012, 2017 and 2021—each aimed at adapting the ICC framework to the evolving demands of international commerce, increasingly complex disputes, and changing arbitration practices. Consistent with previous revisions, the 2026 Rules seek both to codify practices that have emerged through the experience of the ICC Court and arbitral tribunals and to respond to the evolving needs of arbitration users. While the 2026 Rules do not fundamentally alter the structure of ICC arbitration, they introduce a number of targeted amendments aimed at enhancing procedural efficiency, transparency, and flexibility. In particular, the revisions refine several procedural mechanisms that had previously developed in practice or through ICC guidance, including in relation to arbitrator

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision highlights the risks to solicitors of not providing accurate costs information at the outset of a retainer along with regular updates to enable a client to make informed decisions about the costs to be incurred. In this case, the judge disallowed undisclosed partner supervisory time as the client had no notice of these charges and deprived the firm of the usual indemnity approach carrying out a broad-brush assessment of reasonable costs. The judge also exercised his discretion to disallow the firm’s costs of the assessment despite the firm coming within 20 percent of the costs sought on assessment. In essence, the judge relied on the lack of clarity in the firm’s bill as demanded and the lack of warning before costs were incurred to find that the client was justified in challenging the bill on assessment. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd v Berger Paints India Ltd, clarifying that an application for the extension of time under section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be filed even after the expiration of the arbitral tribunal's mandate. This decision resolves the conflicting views held by various High Courts and reinforces the flexibility and robustness of the arbitration process in India. The ruling underscores the importance of party autonomy and the role of courts in ensuring that procedural issues do not obstruct the substantive resolution of disputes. Written by Saurabh Seth, founder at Chambers of Saurabh Seth, along with Sumeera Seth, Neelam Deol and Abhiroop Rathore, counsels at Chambers of Saurabh Seth.

Modes of revival A testator who has revoked their Will either with or without making a new one may wish to revive the revoked Will. The testator may write out the revoked Will again and execute it in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837) or take advantage of the provisions of WA 1837, s 2,. WA 1837, s 22 limits the testator to reviving a revoked Will or codicil (or any part of them) by: • re-execution • a duly executed codicil showing an intention to revive the earlier document Case law makes it clear that no other method of revival exists. The intention to revive must be shown. Where a Will is re-executed, the fact of re-execution shows that the testator intends to revive it. In the case of a codicil, the statutory requirement that there shall be an intention to revive it must be satisfied. The required intention need not be expressly stated as it can be implied from the testator's words. Every Will re-executed or republished

Prior to 1996, the term of copyright in original works used to be 50 years in the UK while in other European countries it was 50, 70 or 80 years. This discrepancy was addressed at an EU level and, as a result of this, in the UK, the copyright term increased to 70 years. As a result of the increase in the term of protection, in certain circumstances, copyright can be revived where it has expired in a work, or extended. ‘Revived copyright’ means any copyright which subsists, by virtue of the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) as amended by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, SI 1995/3297, after having expired under the provisions of CDPA 1988 as they stood immediately before 1 January 1996, including the provisions of Schedule 1 continuing the effect of earlier enactments, or any earlier enactment relating to copyright.

This Practice Note deals with the ways in which the appointment of a guardian may be brought to an end by revocation or disclaimer. It sets out the different ways in which a parent, guardian or special guardian of a child can revoke their appointment of a guardian. It also explains about the formal right of an appointee to disclaim an appointment of a guardian that has been made by a parent, guardian or special guardian. Revocation by parent, guardian or special guardian Under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989 the appointment of a guardian by a parent, guardian or special guardian may be revoked in the following ways: • by making a later appointment, which has the effect of revoking an earlier appointment including one that is made in an unrevoked will or codicil made by the same person in respect of the same child, unless it is clear that the purpose of the later appointment is to appoint an additional guardian

Private Client analysis: In this clear and concise judgment, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Nugee) considers the commonly encountered question of whether a revocation clause in a Will dealing with property in only one jurisdiction should be interpreted as revoking only previous dispositions of assets in that jurisdiction. Although the question is one of intention, the court decided that where the revocation clause was expressed in general terms, there had to be some proper evidence to justify holding that it was not intended to revoke all Wills, even when the Will itself contained dispositions of only some assets. The court also considers the correct order of events required for due execution of a Will under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837). It held that the witnesses could only attest, by signing or acknowledging their signatures, after the testator had carried out the essential element, whether signing or acknowledging their signature, in the presence of both witnesses. Written by Alexander Learmonth KC, barrister at New Square Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn.

The Export Control Joint Unit and the Department for Business and Trade have reported that the General Trade Licence (Russia Sanctions – Legal Advisory Services) has been revoked as of 6 September 2024, following a change to the Russia Sanctions Regulations. This General Licence permitted the direct or indirect provision of legal advisory services in relation to compliance with certain laws or measures, including restrictive measures on or concerning Russia.

The general rule is that marriage automatically revokes any Will made by either party before the marriage (this is known as an involuntary revocation). The rule is enacted in both: • the original section 18 of Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837), which provided that 'Every Will made by a man or woman shall be revoked by his or her marriage…'—this applies to Wills made before 1 January 1983 • the current WA 1837, s 18 (as substituted by section 18(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982)) which provides that 'a Will shall be revoked by the testator's marriage'—this applies to Wills made on or after 1 January 1983 For guidance on voluntary revocation of a Will, see Practice Note: Revocation of Wills. Void and voidable marriages A void marriage is treated as never having taken place and so it does not revoke a Will made by either party. Lord Greene MR said in De Reneville: 'A void marriage is one that will be regarded by every court in any case

A Will is revocable at any time during the testator's lifetime. A Will may only be revoked by automatic operation of law (involuntary revocation) or by a deliberate act of the testator (voluntary revocation). Apart from these methods, and where there has been an obliteration under section 21 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837), an attempt to revoke the Will by any other method will be ineffective. For example, a Will is not revoked by a presumed intention or a change of circumstances unless the change of circumstances is specified in WA 1837. Involuntary revocation A Will is revocable by operation of law on the testator’s: • marriage • civil partnership Certain provisions of a Will are revocable by law on: • divorce or nullity of marriage • dissolution or nullity of civil partnership Involuntary revocation, or revocation by operation of law, is confined to these circumstances. For Wills made on or after 1 January 1983, WA 1837, s 18 (as substituted by section 18 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982) provides

A will is revocable at any time during the testator's lifetime and can be revoked by: 1. marriage or civil partnership; 2. divorce; 3. another will or codicil; 4. writing, duly declaring an intention to revoke; 5. the testator or someone in his presence and by his direction burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the will with the intention of so doing; 6. the revival of a previous will; 7. a duly executed obliteration, interlineation or other alteration; or 8. by such an unexecuted obliteration as renders what is obliterated no longer apparent.

Arbitration analysis: This decision is one of a series of judgments relating to the granting of anti-suit injunctions (ASI) to restrain Russian court proceedings commenced in breach of agreements to arbitrate, arising in connection with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the measures taken by the Russian government and the Russian courts following the invasion and its aftermath. In this matter, the three claimant banks (Bayerische Landesbank, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and Commerzbank AG) sought not only the revocation of the final ASIs they had obtained, but also sought the revocation of declarations regarding jurisdiction, governing law, and breach of contract. This decision therefore provides guidance on the circumstances in which the English courts will revoke orders and declarations they have made. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.