Arbitration Law Monthly

In FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO UniCredit Bank [2025] EWHC 3111 (Comm) Henshaw J considered an application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain mortgage enforcement proceedings brought in Russia allegedly in breach of an arbitration agreement. Henshaw J refused relief on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over the defendants and that the claimant had not in any event shown that the Russian proceedings were in breach of the arbitration agreement.

In MHA Advisory Ltd v Wynter [2025] EWHC 2497 (Comm) Paul Mitchell KC held that the appropriate remedy for a party who complains that an arbitral award is not properly reasoned is an application to the tribunal for additional reasons under section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 rather than a direct appeal to the court under section 68 of the 1996 Act. Indeed, such an appeal is barred by section 70(2) until an application under section 57 has been resolved.

In DJP v DJO and Others [2025] SGCA(I) 2 the Singapore Court of Appeal set aside an award because large parts of it were reproduced from earlier awards from two parallel arbitrations. The chairman of the tribunal had presided over all three arbitrations. The conduct was found to give rise to apparent bias, to prevent the parties from addressing the matters relied upon in making the award and to lead to unequal treatment of the other arbitrators constituting the tribunal.

In Orange Transgroup Ltd and Another v Shein Distribution UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB) Dexter Dias J considered the correct approach to the resolution of a jurisdictional dispute in circumstances where the evidence before the court did not permit of a clear answer.