arbitral rules

Subscribe to arbitral rules via RSS

On November 6, 2024, the French Supreme Court rejected the enforcement of an interim award on jurisdiction in the legal saga opposing Malaysia to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and spanning several jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause in an 1878 agreement – and on the basis of which a US$15 billion award has since been issued against Malaysia – is null and void. This decision will presumably lead the French Supreme Court to annul the US$15 billion award itself next.

We are keeping an eye on the progress of the reform of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The Arbitration Bill, first introduced in November 2023, was designed to update the Arbitration Act 1996 and reinforce England’s position as an attractive forum for international arbitration.

As noted in our most recent blog in this series, the bill was shelved when the 2024 English general election was called. However, in July 2024, the new Labour government reintroduced the bill and it resumes its journey through the UK parliament (tracker). The bill is currently in the upper house of the UK parliament, after which it will be introduced to the lower house for further debate, scrutiny and approval – if both houses agree. Given the support the bill has garnered to date, is likely to pass during the current legislative session (in late 2024 or early 2025).

Recent developments have impacted the much-anticipated update to the English Arbitration Act 1996. Proposed reforms, developed by the Law Commission and through a consultation process, marked the first significant changes to the Act since its inception. However, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s unexpected decision to call a general election in July 2024 has halted all current parliamentary business, including the passage of the bill to reform the Act.

Effective choice of court clauses (also known as jurisdiction clauses) are central to finance agreements. Reliable, certain process to enforce contractual obligations is essential for cross-border trade and finance transactions. Parties want to be sure that any disputes will be heard not just according to their chosen law but in their chosen forum, and that any judgment obtained can be easily and reliably enforced, including abroad if needed.   

The Eleventh Circuit upheld an arbitral award last month despite the arbitrators’ failure to make certain disclosures regarding potential sources of bias. The litigation involved a dispute between the Panama Canal Authority, the government agency responsible for the operation and management of the Panama Canal, and Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., the contractor hired to construct the Panama Canal expansion. Complications with the project caused progress to be “severely delayed and disrupted,” resulting in liability disputes between the parties. 

Whether you are a regular user of arbitration, a default user of your local courts or pick and choose a forum depending on the deal, it always pays to take a cold look at those choices. Do they still work for you? Will they work in the future when a dispute arises? Have you taken into account developments in law and current best practice?

Today is the day to review your dispute resolution (DR) provisions. Why? We give you 5 good reasons.