<?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_2605.1.2002/productViews/plcuk/</docs><category>Legal updates</category><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com</link><title>Arbitration</title><description>Arbitration</description><item><title>ICC updates note to parties and tribunals following recent rule changes</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I558a92065f3711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I558a92065f3711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The ICC has updated its Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration. The updated note now refers to the ICC Rules 2026, which entered into force on 1 June 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I558a92065f3711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Russian court reconsiders decision and refuses interim relief in support of LCIA arbitration (Moscow City Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibefd31175f2411f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibefd31175f2411f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Case No 33-16033/2026, the Moscow City Court reconsidered a previous decision and refused interim relief in support of an LCIA arbitration.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibefd31175f2411f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Swiss Supreme Court upholds forgery conviction for signing sham arbitral award</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2669449b5e9711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2669449b5e9711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Decision 6B_151/2024, the Swiss Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of a Geneva attorney for forgery in connection with a fabricated arbitral award that was later used in a political dispute in Kuwait. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that a sham arbitral award may constitute intellectual forgery under article 251 of the Swiss Criminal Code.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2669449b5e9711f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New ICC Arbitration Rules effective 1 June 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I559ad91f5a7c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I559ad91f5a7c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 entered into force on 1 June 2026 and will apply to any arbitration commenced after that date.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I559ad91f5a7c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/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/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 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/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Arbitrate first, wind up later: Singapore Court of Appeal reaffirms AnAn and parts ways with Privy Council</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9638542c5a8c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9638542c5a8c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Singapore Commodities Group Co Pte Ltd v Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] SGCA 24, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed a winding-up application over a disputed debt within the scope of an arbitration agreement, reaffirming the AnAn v VTB Bank [2020] 1 SLR 1158 and Founder Group v Singapore JHC Co Pte Ltd [2023] 2 SGCA 40 line of authorities. The court also ordered indemnity costs against the unsuccessful applicant. The decision provides important guidance for creditors and debtors in commodities and cross-border insolvency disputes.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9638542c5a8c11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/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/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published an article highlighting what's on the agenda for in-house lawyers in June 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Hong Kong Court of Appeal rejects infra petita challenge to HKIAC award</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id9b2d2f7551a11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id9b2d2f7551a11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In LY v HW [2026] HKCA 936, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal refused an application to set aside an HKIAC award advanced on the basis of a failure to deal with allegedly key issues, holding that it had been unnecessary for the tribunal to address them because of its findings on other points.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id9b2d2f7551a11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>SEP owner entitled to offer adjustable licence with arbitration mechanism without implementer's prior consent (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Acer Inc v Nokia Technologies OY [2026] EWCA Civ 564, the Court of Appeal considered jurisdiction, case management stay and interim licence declarations in a dispute between implementers (Acer and ASUS) and a standard-essential patent (SEP) owner (Nokia) concerning licences to Nokia's codec SEP portfolio on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms under the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) regime.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Licence term requiring implementer to submit cross-licence disputes to arbitration not on RAND terms (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If4d71afe535411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If4d71afe535411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Acer Inc and another v Nokia Technologies OY [2026] EWCA Civ 604, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that a disputed term in Nokia's adjustable licence offers, requiring implementers to submit cross-licence disputes to arbitration, was not on RAND terms. The court made the case management stay conditional on Nokia excising that term.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/If4d71afe535411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>BIT silence benefits dual nationals, unless states agree otherwise (French Court of Cassation)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e5503c6536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e5503c6536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In García Armas and García Gruber v Venezuela (Appeal No 24-21.876) and Vietnam v Dangelas et al (Appeal No 24-10.445), the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued two judgments that together establish that the treaty, and the treaty alone, provides the relevant framework for the standing of dual nationals in investment treaty arbitration. Where it is silent, the jurisdictional protection extends to investors holding the nationality of both contracting states.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e5503c6536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Hong Kong Court of Appeal rules that hearing of award challenge can be conditional on compliance with prior anti-suit injunction</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e54b355536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e54b355536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In RusChemAlliance v Linde [2026] HKCA 763, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal refused to review a first instance decision preventing an award debtor from proceeding with an application to set aside an HKIAC award until it cured its non-compliance with a prior anti-suit injunction. An allegation that the HKIAC award was tainted by bias and contrary to public policy did not prevent the court from granting the "Hadkinson" order halting the set-aside application unless and until breach of anti-suit injunction is cured.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e54b355536611f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>UPC's Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) to commence operation on 2 June 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807d45f52c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807d45f52c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The inauguration of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is set for 2 June 2026 in Ljubljana. The PMAC's Arbitration, Mediation and Expert Determination Rules have been formally adopted by the UPC Administrative Committee.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807d45f52c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Singapore Court of Appeal affirms role of limitation periods in enforcement of arbitral awards</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia65a5f70529911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia65a5f70529911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Pacmar Shipping Pte Ltd v South of England Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] SGCA 20, the Singapore Court of Appeal affirmed the principles set out by the High Court in South of England Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd (in liquidation) v Pacmar Shipping Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 8 regarding the limitation period for enforcing a foreign arbitral award under section 6(1)(c) of the Singapore Limitation Act 1959.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia65a5f70529911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court of Appeal upholds anti-suit injunctions preventing Russian bank from pursuing claims in Russia to avoid arbitration agreements (English Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In JP Morgan Securities plc and others v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] EWCA Civ 589, the English Court of Appeal dismissed a Russian bank's appeal against anti-suit injunctions restraining it from pursuing claims in the Russian courts against JP Morgan entities in breach of arbitration agreements. The court held that affiliates of the JP Morgan contracting parties could rely on the provision for arbitration contained in JP Morgan's terms of business. Also, the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, being designed to circumvent London arbitration clauses and the UK sanctions regime.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New practice note on costs and third-party funding in arbitrations in Saudi Arabia</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic32178564f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic32178564f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published Practice note, Costs and Third-Party Funding in Arbitrations in Saudi Arabia: Overview. The note explores rules governing the allocation and recoverability of costs in arbitrations seated in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The note also considers the extent to which the use of third-party funding is permitted in arbitrations seated in Saudi Arabia.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic32178564f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Québec Superior Court annuls arbitral award due to fictitious authorities "hallucinated" by AI</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I38fbfcaf48db11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I38fbfcaf48db11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) v Santé Québec – Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360, the Québec Superior Court annulled an arbitral award after finding that the arbitrator relied on non-existent jurisprudence, likely generated by AI. The court found that these "hallucinated" cases were central to the arbitrator's reasoning and that he had effectively delegated the drafting of reasons to a third party, undermining the integrity of the arbitral process.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I38fbfcaf48db11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Dutch Supreme Court upholds investment treaty award despite express party agreement to exclude arbitration</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iac218fdc4a0011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iac218fdc4a0011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In BBVA SA v Bolivia (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:678), the Dutch Supreme Court refused to set aside an arbitral award rendered in an investment dispute between the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Spanish bank Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA. The court confirmed that an agreement between parties that excluded arbitration had been amended by a bilateral investment treaty of a later date.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iac218fdc4a0011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Section 68 challenge to costs award dismissed: applicable LCIA rules provision excludes application of default requirements in AA 1996 (English Commercial Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7a856ffd457911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7a856ffd457911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Genel Energy Miran Bina Bawi Limited v Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2026] EWHC 1003 (Comm), the English Commercial Court dismissed a challenge under section 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) to an arbitral tribunal's costs award. The court held that the provisions on costs contained in the applicable LCIA arbitration rules displaced the requirements in section 63(3) and that non-compliance with those requirements would at most constitute an erroneous exercise of power, not an excess of power.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7a856ffd457911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court distinguishes between primary and ancillary sanctions provisions in dismissing public policy challenge to enforcement of arbitration award (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I73003b7d488511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I73003b7d488511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In OWH SE iL (in liquidation) v RTI Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm), the High Court held that sanctions rules providing a defence to liability were ancillary to the primary sanctions regime and did not carry sufficient public policy weight to refuse enforcement of an arbitration award.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I73003b7d488511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Swiss Supreme Court holds that Ukraine sanctions trigger statutory deferral of claim, barring enforcement of arbitral award</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8941ee38486211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8941ee38486211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Decision 4A_305/2025, the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed an award creditor's appeal against the cantonal court's refusal to enforce an LCIA award, upholding the dismissal of the enforcement action on different grounds. The creditor's Russian shareholder was subject to Swiss financial sanctions under the Ordinance on Measures Connected with the Situation in Ukraine (Ordinance). The Swiss Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition under article 15(2) of the Ordinance to directly or indirectly make funds available to sanctioned entities, or entities controlled by them, created a statutory deferral of the claim, barring enforcement while the sanctions remain in force.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8941ee38486211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Delhi High Court refuses to enforce ICC award on public policy grounds due to arbitrator's failure to disclose prior engagement</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e6c4b42453f11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e6c4b42453f11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd, Delhi High Court, OMP(EFA)(COMM) 4/2025, the Delhi High Court refused enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, holding that an arbitrator's deliberate failure to disclose his prior engagement in an arbitration involving the award holder's chairman violated the most basic notions of justice and morality. It was therefore contrary to Indian public policy under section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996).</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2e6c4b42453f11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/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/I542b14a0440111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I542b14a0440111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 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/I542b14a0440111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><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></channel></rss>