Arbitration Law Monthly

In Tyson International Co Ltd v GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 40 the Court of Appeal has affirmed the first instance judgment of Nigel Cooper KC [2025] Lloyd's Rep IR 182 in the long-running dispute concerning Tyson's reinsurance arrangements and has confirmed that an exclusive jurisdiction clause prevailed over arbitration provisions by reason of an express "hierarchy" or "confusion" clause.

The Arbitration Act 1996 contains some 17 provisions under which a decision by a judge on an arbitration issue or on an appeal against an award can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only with the permission of the judge. In K1 v B (No 2) [2026] EWCA Civ 261; [2026] 1 Lloyd's Rep 385 the appellant unsuccessfully tried to fashion an exception to that principle based upon the argument that a decision that section 68 was not applicable did not constitute a decision "under" section 68 and so permission could be sought from the Court of Appeal.

In CAFI - Commodity & Freight Integrators DMCC V GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 (Comm); [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 603 the arbitral tribunal appointed to resolve a dispute under a contract declined jurisdiction to consider whether that contract had been subsequently rendered void by the express terms of a later contract itself containing an arbitration clause. Henshaw J concluded that a dispute as to the effect of the second contract fell within the arbitration clause in the first contract. There were also issues of serious irregularity and error of law in the event that the jurisdictional challenge had failed.

In V and Another v K [2025] EWHC 1523 (Comm); [2025] 2 Lloyd's Rep 90 Calver J reviewed the principles applicable to potential conflict disclosures by an arbitrator. The judge ruled that there was no duty of disclosure in the case of a respected maritime KC who received a relatively small proportion of appointments from one firm of solicitors.

In Party A v Party B and Another [2026] EWHC 327 (Comm); [2026] 1 Lloyd's Rep 286 the claimant sought the removal of the arbitrator and an appeal against procedural orders made by the arbitrator, and a stay of the arbitration pending the resolution of the applications. Butcher J doubted that he had any jurisdiction to intervene, but even if he did then the circumstances of the present case were not close to exceptional.

The facts of A Corporation v Firm B and Another [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm); [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 443 were highly unusual, constituting an attempt to prevent an international law firm from using information obtained in one arbitration in another arbitration. The judgment of Foxton J is close to a textbook analysis of the principles of arbitral confidentiality.