<?xml version="1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet title = "XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="/RSS/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><docs>https://s1-uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/WLN-PLCUK-SC_2604.1.1007/productViews/plcuk/</docs><category>Legal updates</category><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com</link><title>Arbitration</title><description>Arbitration</description><item><title>Hague Court of Appeal sets aside intra-EU BIT arbitration award</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10c0000417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10c0000417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In WCV Cyprus Ltd and another v Czech Republic (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:661), the Hague Court of Appeal set aside an arbitral award rendered under an intra‑EU BIT on the ground that the underlying arbitration clause was incompatible with mandatory EU law as interpreted in the Achmea jurisprudence. The court further addressed the scope of its powers in set aside proceedings, holding that it can adopt ancillary measures aimed at preventing the circumvention of the EU judicial system.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10c0000417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Indian Supreme Court recognises transnational issue estoppel for first time: enforcement courts cannot relitigate issues decided by courts at seat </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I300714373fc611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I300714373fc611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 31945-31947 of 2025 and 31866-68 of 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed the enforcement of a foreign award, rejecting public policy objections. Applying the doctrine of "transnational issue estoppel", it held that enforcement cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996), in reliance on issues raised, where those issues had already been decided by the court at the seat of arbitration.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I300714373fc611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New in-house content: horizon scanning</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10bfc1a417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10bfc1a417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published an article highlighting what's on the agenda for in-house lawyers in May 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia10bfc1a417d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New practice note on confidentiality under UAE Federal Arbitration Law </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id85616133e3a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id85616133e3a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published Practice note, Confidentiality under UAE Federal Arbitration Law. The note addresses the rules on confidentiality applicable to arbitrations seated onshore in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which are governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 (as amended in 2023).</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id85616133e3a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Award remitted for failure to address essential causation issues resulting in serious irregularity under section 68 (English Commercial Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I62b930093db611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I62b930093db611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Indus Powertech Inc v Echjay Industries Private Ltd [2026] EWHC 827 (Comm), the English Commercial Court upheld a challenge to an award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure to deal with all issues. The court held that this gave rise to a serious irregularity and remitted those issues to the tribunal.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I62b930093db611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Non-parties to customer service agreement could not rely on Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001 to seek stay of court proceedings (Singapore High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf3c94f33ca311f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf3c94f33ca311f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Low Jun Hong and others v Hong Qi Yu and another [2026] SGHCR 11, the General Division of the Singapore High Court dismissed applications by former management of a digital asset trading exchange to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration, holding that the defendants were non-parties to the customer service agreement and could not rely on the arbitration clause under sections 9(1) or 9(2) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf3c94f33ca311f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Buyer of vessel's application for interim mandatory injunction compelling seller to procure vessel's release from arrest dismissed (Singapore High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia84b72163cad11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia84b72163cad11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Aquilo Shipping Inc v SRTT Marine Trading &amp; Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 79, the General Division of the Singapore High Court dismissed an application by the buyer of a vessel for an interim mandatory injunction under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 to compel the seller to furnish security to procure the vessel's release from arrest.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia84b72163cad11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Ontario Superior Court enforces CIETAC award rejecting incapacity and public policy defences as collateral attack</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia96727423b0511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia96727423b0511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Feicheng Mining Group v Liu, 2026 ONSC 1969, the Ontario Superior Court recognised and enforced a CIETAC arbitral award. In doing so, the court rejected the respondent's defences that he lacked capacity when he signed the underlying repayment agreement due to alleged coercion and mental distress, and that enforcement would be contrary to Ontario public policy. The court held that the respondent's arguments effectively sought to relitigate factual findings already made by the tribunal, falling well short of the "exceptionally high" threshold for refusing enforcement of an award on public policy grounds in Ontario.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia96727423b0511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New in-house content on developing yourself and your team for in-house success and recognition</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5e87b83d3b0611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5e87b83d3b0611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published an article on how to develop yourself and your team for in-house success and recognition.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5e87b83d3b0611f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>High Court of Australia finds that ratification of New York Convention does not constitute waiver of immunity</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic08cde0f37ed11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic08cde0f37ed11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In CCDM Holdings LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia held that India had not waived sovereign immunity in respect of enforcement proceedings by ratifying the New York Convention.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic08cde0f37ed11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Singapore High Court clarifies preclusive effect of article 16(3) UNCITRAL Model Law and that non-compliance with pre‑arbitral procedures goes towards admissibility</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e5d636c374411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e5d636c374411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In DSQ v DSR [2026] SGHC 67, the Singapore High Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, holding that a party who fails to challenge a tribunal's preliminary jurisdictional ruling under article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction) within the statutory timeline is precluded from doing so at the setting‑aside stage. The court also held that non‑compliance with pre‑arbitral procedures is generally an issue of admissibility, rather than jurisdiction.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e5d636c374411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Singapore High Court dismisses set aside application in iron ore arbitration dispute</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic0e54d3134c511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic0e54d3134c511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In DTM v DTN [2026] SGHC 68, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set aside or remit an award to the tribunal on natural justice grounds. The decision reinforces the high threshold for curial intervention in international arbitration and offers practical lessons for practitioners in commodities disputes.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic0e54d3134c511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Hawar Circle publishes draft "safe" seat considerations for consultation</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2164e701333511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2164e701333511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The Hawar Circle has published, for external consultation, draft Application Notes for use in conjunction with the CIArb Centenary Principles on what constitutes a "safe" seat of arbitration. The consultation period closes on 15 August 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2164e701333511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Free Practical Law training for all subscribers</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>Practical Law provides free training on how to use Practical Law more effectively. This is available in a variety of formats, including live webinars and training videos.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>CIArb calls for feedback on CIArb guideline on use of AI in arbitration</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I732ed7072c1511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I732ed7072c1511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>CIArb has called for feedback on the CIArb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025). The deadline for submitting feedback is 26 May 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I732ed7072c1511f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Russian court considers investor's claim against Norway, bypassing the rules on Norway's immunity and applicable investment treaty (Commercial Court of the Kursk Region)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic5a5d9e92c3e11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic5a5d9e92c3e11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Case No A35-6794/2023, the Commercial Court of the Kursk Region determined that it had jurisdiction to consider a Russian investor's claim against Norway, although it ultimately dismissed it on the merits.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic5a5d9e92c3e11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New in-house content: horizon scanning</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf77475b2c3511f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf77475b2c3511f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published an article highlighting what's on the agenda for in-house lawyers in April 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibf77475b2c3511f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Latest statistics from English Commercial Court (2024-2025) show increase in award challenges and appeals </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia4bcc6f6291211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia4bcc6f6291211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published the Commercial Court Report 2024 to 2025, which includes statistics on arbitration claims in the English Commercial Court.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia4bcc6f6291211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Out of time, out of options: DIFC Court of First Instance rejects application to set aside DIAC partial award</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3b43b83527ea11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3b43b83527ea11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Okeke v Obike [2026] DIFC ARB 039, the DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed an application to set aside a DIAC partial award, finding it time-barred under article 41(3) of the DIFC Arbitration Law, and, in the alternative, rejecting the challenge on the merits. The case reinforces the DIFC Courts' consistently strict approach to set aside applications and strict adherence to statutory time limits.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3b43b83527ea11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Establishment of ICDR Ireland: Dublin to host new international arbitration hub</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I44d1853527cf11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I44d1853527cf11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The AAA-ICDR has announced that Ireland is to host a new international commercial arbitration hub for the EMEA region in Dublin, to bolster Ireland's position as a global business hub.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I44d1853527cf11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Burden of proof for annulment of awards on public policy grounds should shift where breaches of EU sanctions are alleged (AG's opinion) </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d163278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d163278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In DNO Yemen AS v Petrolin Trading Ltd and others (Case C-842/24) EU:C:2026:233, Advocate General Szpunar opined on the appropriate standard, and burden of proof, for determining when an alleged breach of Council Regulation (EU) 1352/2014 (Regulation), imposing sanctions on designated parties in recognition of the conflict in Yemen, will trigger public policy grounds for annulment of an arbitral award. He noted that the burden of proof for annulment of an award on public policy grounds should shift where evidence tends to indicate that there is a reasonable risk of a breach of EU sanctions.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d163278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New ICC Arbitration Rules to enter into force 1 June 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I04e18966276711f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I04e18966276711f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has approved a revised version of the ICC Arbitration Rules, which will enter into force on 1 June 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I04e18966276711f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Foreign award enforcement: Indian court passes interim order restraining award debtor's foreign subsidiary from dealing with Indian company shares (Telangana High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibc3dc835246411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibc3dc835246411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In OWH SE iL v United Company Rusal, International PJSC and others (Execution Petition No 1 of 2026), the Telangana High Court, in execution proceedings seeking enforcement in India of two London-seated arbitral awards, passed an interim order restraining a foreign step-down subsidiary of the Russian award debtor from transferring its shareholding in an Indian entity to preserve enforcement assets.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibc3dc835246411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Swiss Supreme Court rules that non-participating respondent forfeited right to rely on procedural objections</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47076123aa11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47076123aa11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Decision 4A_359/2025, the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed Russian energy company Gazprom's application to set aside an ICC award in favour of Ukrainian state-owned gas company Naftogaz. After sending a letter to the ICC in which it disputed the validity of the arbitration clause, Gazprom did not participate in the arbitration. Gazprom challenged the award, arguing that the co-arbitrator nominated by Naftogaz and the presiding arbitrator lacked impartiality. The court dismissed the challenge, ruling that, as Gazprom had failed to challenge the composition of the tribunal during the arbitration, it had forfeited the right to do so now.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47076123aa11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Hong Kong court declares crypto arbitration settlement agreement null and void due to signatory's lack of authority (Hong Kong Court of First Instance)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie34f2a7422bb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie34f2a7422bb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In LT v RV [2026] HKCFI 1280, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that a settlement agreement and a procedural order terminating an HKIAC arbitration could not be set aside as awards. However, the court was able to grant relief pursuant to its supervisory jurisdiction and an exclusive jurisdiction clause.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie34f2a7422bb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Enforcement of investment treaty awards: Hague Court of Appeal rejects application to lift attachment and rejects state immunity claims</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie11d37b321fb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie11d37b321fb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Gazprom International v DTEK Krymenergo (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:181), the Court of Appeal of The Hague refused an application to lift a conservatory attachment over a Gazprom affiliate's shares in a Dutch joint venture, and rejected the argument that the Russian Federation was entitled to immunity from execution. DTEK Krymenergo, a Ukrainian energy company, had levied the attachments when seeking to enforce a US$300 million investment treaty award against the Russian Federation.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie11d37b321fb11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Arbitral award enforcement blocked by France's confiscation and restitution regime (French Court of Cassation)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iacf12a14212811f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iacf12a14212811f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In CBGE v Public Prosecutor of the Paris Court of Appeal, Court of Cassation (Case No U 24-10.394), the French Court of Cassation held that proceeds of assets confiscated in France following the conviction of a foreign public official for money laundering cannot be attached by a creditor seeking to enforce an arbitral award against the foreign state. The court ruled that such proceeds do not become the property of the foreign state: they are vested in the French state and allocated to development projects benefiting the population of the foreign state.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iacf12a14212811f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Indian Supreme Court reaffirms pro-enforcement bias: no second bite at the cherry</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If7e78f371ec611f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If7e78f371ec611f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (SLP(C) No 008152/2026), the Indian Supreme Court declined to interfere with, and dismissed, a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had ordered execution of a foreign arbitral award and laid down the narrow scope of objections to resist such execution.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If7e78f371ec611f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Indian Supreme Court draws a hard line on forged arbitration agreements: no consent, no arbitration</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2938180a1ec411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2938180a1ec411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Begum v Mukherjee 2026 SCC OnLine SC 135, the Indian Supreme Court has sharpened the boundary between arbitrable and non-arbitrable disputes, holding that where an arbitration clause is embedded in a document alleged to be forged, the controversy "strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction" and falls squarely within the category of non-arbitrable disputes.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2938180a1ec411f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New content: Ongoing Conflict in the Middle East: Practical Law Resources Toolkit</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250132ab1d3a11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250132ab1d3a11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published a new Toolkit that curates Practical Law resources to support legal practitioners navigating challenges from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250132ab1d3a11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item></channel></rss>