Arbitration Law Monthly

In Energyen Corporation v HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 1586 (Comm); [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 615 Foxton J discussed the jurisdictional issues that arose where an award was allegedly made in favour of a person who had not commenced the arbitration.

It has long been settled in England under the Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 principle that a party to judicial proceedings cannot in later proceedings rely upon matters that could have been but were not raised in the initial proceedings. That principle was extended in England to rulings in arbitration in Dallal v Bank Mellat [1986] QB 441 and in Singapore in AKN v ALC [2016] 1 SLR 966. The issue before the Singapore Court of Appeal in CIX v DGN [2025] SGCA 10 was whether the principle extended to proceedings involving third parties. There had been a positive answer to that question in Cachet Special Opportunities SP v Feng Shi [2023] SGHCR 16, but the Court of Appeal felt it appropriate to consider the matter in detail.

In Republic of India v CCDM Holdings LLC [2025] FCAFC 2; [2025] Lloyd's Rep Plus 73 the Full Federal Court of Australia answered a question as yet unresolved in England, namely, whether a state's accession to the New York Convention amounted to an agreement to waive state immunity against recognition and enforcement of an award.

The decision of Miles J in Djanogly v Djanogly and Others [2025] EWHC 61 (Ch) concerned a rather unfortunate family financial dispute that had been referred to arbitration. The lengthy judgment contains some interesting points on the application of religious law in arbitration cases.