Global Arbitration News

Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024), reh’g denied (June 3, 2024)[1] 

Factual Background

In 2016, Plaintiff Massiel Hernandez (“Hernandez”) executed an arbitration agreement with Defendant Sohnen Enterprises, Inc. (“Sohnen”), that stated, “This Agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA“), 9 U.S.C. [section] 1, et seq.”

The DIFC Court of Appeal (“Appeal Court”) confirmed in a recent judgement in Neal v Nadir [2024] DIFC A 001 (“Judgement”) that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to enforce interim measures where the seat of the arbitration is not the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), when those interim measures take the form of an award.

The Court of First Instance (CFI) already considered twice this year in the context of interim measures whether an arbitrator’s order amounted to an award or interim order: see our blog post on the decisions in G v N and W v Contractor.[1]

But questions for the CFI as to what constitutes an award

The Hong Kong courts consistently adopt a robust and purely mechanistic approach to applications resisting enforcement of awards, but they will refuse enforcement in appropriate circumstances.

In the case of A v R1 and Another [2024] HKCFI 1511, the Court of First Instance (CFI) refused to enforce two related Mainland awards because various failings

Another piece of troubling news for arbitration in Russia-related matters came to light. The Russian Supreme Court ruled in Case No. А45-19015/2023 (the “Ruling”) that lack of impartiality and independence of arbitrators is presumed when the tribunal is formed of nationals of states that are designated in Russia as “unfriendly” states. Although the possibilities to

In a decision of April 3, 2024, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“SFSC”) dismissed an application by Spain for an annulment of an arbitral award issued by an ad hoc-arbitral tribunal seated in Geneva. The arbitral tribunal had held that Spain had failed to accord fair and equitable treatment to a French company which had

This debate occurred as part of London International Disputes Week and was chaired by Stella Mitchell-Voisin, CEO of Summit Trust International. Anthony Poulton and Richard Molesworth of Baker McKenzie argued in favour of the motion (the “House“), while Dakis Hagen KC and Stephanie Thompson, both of Serle Court Chambers, argued against (the “Opposition“).

Spineway SA v. Strategos Group LLC, No. 22-mc-00604-JLH (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2024)[1] Factual Background

Spineway SA (“Spineway”) and Strategos Group LLC (“Strategos”) were collaborators on a business venture in South America. According to Spineway, it was required under the terms of the agreement to purchase an ownership interest from Strategos in an investment

On 11 April 2024, Baker McKenzie launched the Arbitration Bill Progress Tracker, hosted on Global Arbitration News. The Tracker provides an overview of the Arbitration Bill, a guide to the key proposed changes and implications if the Bill is passed, and maps out the Bill’s progress, which will be updated regularly.The UK government asked the

Whether an arbitral tribunal’s decision constitutes an “award” is an important question. It determines, for example, whether the decision is subject to review by the supervisory court, the available recourse against it, and its enforceability. As there is no universally accepted definition of “award”, its meaning depends on the jurisdiction in question.

The Court of