Arbitration Law Monthly

By Edward Liu (Partner), Lori Ng and Mickey Li (Senior Associates), Aaron Lai and Chantelle Chan and Donald Lui (Associates), Thomas Au and Winnie Lui (Trainee Solicitors), all members of the dispute resolution team at Haiwen & Partners LLP.

Tecnicas Reunidas Saudia for Services & Contracting Co Ltd v Petroleum Chemicals and Mining Co Ltd [2025] EWHC 1785 (Comm); [2025] 2 Lloyd's Rep 59 raised more or less the same issues discussed by the Court of Appeal in Czech Republic v Diag Human SE [2025] EWCA Civ 588; [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 458.

Republic of Kazakhstan v World Wide Minerals Ltd and Others [2025] EWHC 452 (Comm); [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 298 is one of the rare cases in which the High Court has found that there had been serious irregularity within section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to deal with a key issue put to it. Bryan J regarded the facts before him as the clearest possible illustration of serious irregularity in that form.

Investcom Global Ltd v PLC Investments Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 2505 (Comm); [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 163 was a multi-party dispute arising out of two separate contracts each containing arbitration clauses, one specifying England as the seat and the other silent. The issue was whether anti-suit injunctions could be granted. Henshaw J upheld an injunction as regards the former arbitration, but not as regards the latter.