London – International Arbitration

June 25, 2026June 25, 2026 by Mark Handley

English Court of Appeal rules that signing the New York Convention does not waive state immunity from adjudication

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal in England handed down a significant judgment on the question of the enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign states.

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v The Republic of India [2026] EWCA Civ 797, the question for the court was whether by signing the New York Convention India had agreed to waive its immunity from adjudication in England.

If there had been no waiver, then India would be able to run an argument that because the tribunal in the underlying investment treaty arbitration had not had jurisdiction, then the “arbitration exception” to state immunity did not apply. It would give India an opportunity to fight the issue of jurisdiction which had been lost in the arbitration.

If there had been a waiver, then questions based on the “arbitration exception” would not arise. There would be no adjudicative immunity and the case could proceed to enforcement or execution.

The case turned on Article III of the New York Convention, which reads:

“Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles” (emphasis added).

For the Court of Appeal, if sovereign immunity fell within “the rules of procedure” then there had been no waiver by signing the Convention.

The Court of Appeal in a fairly strident and unanimous judgment followed a range of Supreme Court decisions, decisions of the International Court of Justice, and a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, to hold that state immunity does fall within the rubric of “rules of procedure”.

Accordingly, there had been no waiver by India of its sovereign immunity by prior agreement, and it will be able open to India to now argue that because the tribunal had been wrong to find it had jurisdiction, the “arbitration exception” to the state’s immunity does not apply.

June 11, 2026June 11, 2026 by Mark Handley

English High Court issues final anti-suit injunction to restrain US proceedings in breach of arbitration agreement

In Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment Inc & Ors [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm), the London Commercial Court has issued judgment granting a final anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in the US brought in breach of an arbitration clause that read in part:

“Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Policy, or the breach thereof, shall be fully and finally determined in London, England under the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996 (as amended or supplemented) by an Arbitration Board composed of three arbitrators. Each arbitrator shall be an active Queens Counsel or retired judge of the English High Court or Court of Appeal familiar with insurance and the Act. All matters relating to the existence of the agreement to arbitrate and the selection of arbitrators shall be determined under the laws of England and Wales”.

The Defendants did not appear at the final hearing despite belatedly applying to contest English jurisdiction having previously agreed to several consent orders continuing the initial interim anti-suit injunction.

The Defendants’ three arguments were: i) the arbitration clause was invalid as a matter of Louisiana law based on a mandatory statute; ii) the case had no connection to England and the Defendants had not submitted to the jurisdiction; and iii) Louisiana was the more suitable forum.

The judge gave arguments ii) and iii) short shrift (at [44]): “If the arbitration agreement is valid, then points (2) and (3) do not matter”.

In relation to argument i), the judge held that the arbitration agreement was governed by English law and that as regards the scope of that agreement, “Because the parties have expressly agreed that this falls to be determined under English law, Louisiana law is irrelevant”.

The judge also ordered damages in the amount of the legal fees incurred by the Claimant in England in resisting the various US proceedings, as well as its costs in England on the indemnity basis.

March 5, 2024March 5, 2024 by Mark Handley

English court stays litigation in favour of arbitration

Seven companies have a claim against their former director for breach of fiduciary duties. Three of those companies have an arbitration agreement.

All seven companies bring a claim in the English court against the former director who applies to have the court proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration.

The three claimants with an arbitration agreement concede that they must sue in arbitration, and the question then becomes whether the court claims by the other claimants should be stayed in favour of the arbitration or not.

Continue reading “English court stays litigation in favour of arbitration”

February 28, 2024February 28, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

Apparent bias and section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (1996)

The English court seldom removes an arbitrator due to apparent bias (to be distinguished from actual bias), but in the recent case of H1 & Anor v W & Ors [2024] EWHC 382 (Comm), it did. The arbitration concerned film insurance and a dispute over an accident on the film set. The sole arbitrator, a non-lawyer industry specialist nominated by the British Film Institute, was removed for apparent bias following a successful application under section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

The judgment is noteworthy for its treatment of section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996, but also because of Calver J’s decision to anonymise the parties and the arbitrator. Continue reading “Apparent bias and section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (1996)”

September 7, 2023February 12, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

UK Law Commission Publishes Its Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final Report and Bill

On 6 September the Law Commission published its final report and recommendations on reforms to the Arbitration Act. The full report is available here.

Below follows a non-exhaustive summary of some of the key changes:

Statutory Rule on Governing Law of an Arbitration Agreement

English law has developed common law rules to determine which law governs an arbitration agreement. These rules were summarised by the UK Supreme Court in Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, and largely confirmed in Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48. Broadly speaking, absent an agreement to the contrary the choice of law of the main contract would also apply to the arbitration agreement.

The proposed new Section 6A would alter that framework for agreements post-dating the new Act becoming law. The new Section 6A still recognises the parties’ positive choice of governing law in the arbitration agreement as determinative. Failing such choice, however, the law of the seat will be applied as the governing law.

Continue reading “UK Law Commission Publishes Its Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final Report and Bill”