Arbitration Law Monthly

In JKD and Another v IKC [2026] EWHC 2031 (Comm); [2026] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 an ICC Tribunal refused to grant interim measures to the applicant, the effect of which would have been to prevent the respondent from calling on performance bonds issued by a third-party bank. The question in the present case was whether the tribunal’s decision was capable of challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996. Dias J concluded that no challenge was possible.

In Gluck v Endzweig and Another [2026] EWCA Civ 145; [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 375 the Court of Appeal ruled that a provision in an arbitration clause conferring upon the tribunal the power to amend the award at any time was repugnant to the principle that an award must be final and binding, and would therefore not be given effect by the court.

In Posh Projects Pte Ltd v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Yangtze Harmony [2026] SGHC 3; [2026] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 341 , S Mohan J in the Singapore High Court applied established English authority to conclude that where subject matter was arrested in in rem proceedings which were stayed pending the arbitration award, once the award had been handed down the stay could be lifted and the award creditor could seek to enforce the award by means of a judgment on the award.

In JSC “Kazan Oil Plant” v Aves Trade DMCC [2025] EWHC 2713 (Comm); [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 552 Bright J confirmed previous authority for the proposition that where there is a tiered arbitration provision consisting of a first-tier tribunal with appeal to an appeal board, the 28-day period allowed by section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for challenging the award of the appeal board runs from the date of the award and not from the date on which the award was notified to the appellant.