London International Disputes Week 2026: Key Takeaways on Resolving China-Related Disputes in a Global Era
As China’s economic influence continues to shape global trade and investment, disputes involving Chinese parties are becoming more prevalent, more complex and with greater sums at stake, a theme explored at London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2026.
Resolving these disputes often requires more than legal expertise – it demands cultural fluency, strategic prowess, and a genuine understanding of how best to engage with Chinese counterparties, whilst navigating a wide array of challenges from shifting supply chains to geopolitical tensions.
At LIDW 2026, we hosted a panel bringing together Ms Jue Jun Lu, a Chinese-speaking commercial disputes partner at Charles Russell Speechlys in London, Ms May Tai, an independent arbitrator, Ms Henrietta Jackson-Stops, a mediator at IPOS Mediation, and Dr. Min Shi, a quantum expert and partner at Oxera Consulting, where we explored these issues in more detail.
A wider choice of arbitral institutions
Historically, many international commercial disputes were resolved in the English courts or through London-seated arbitration. In recent years, following the rise of Singapore and Hong Kong as regional arbitration hubs, Chinese arbitral institutions have also ramped up efforts to enhance their appeal and credibility outside the PRC. This has created an increasingly diverse and competitive dispute resolution landscape and raises the question of how parties should go about picking the appropriate arbitral institution and seat.
Relevant considerations are of course highly fact-dependent including, for example, details of the institutional rules in question, costs, duration, practical convenience, and enforceability. For those clients who have reservations with domestic Chinese arbitral institutions, there is a convergence of arbitral procedure across Asia, such that in practice the basic framework of an arbitration administered by CEITAC Hong Kong may not be too different from that of an HKIAC arbitration.
Early intervention
Where a dispute starts to emerge, preparation is vital and China-related matters usually call for a particular emphasis on record-keeping, evidence preservation, and taking early legal advice, if possible. As parties focus (rightly) on resolving disputes commercially and amicably, expert input on quantum sometimes can help move the dial in settlement negotiations. It is worth making sure that even provisional damages assessments are supported by robust analysis, which helps build and maintain trust and credibility during the settlement process as well as in subsequent legal proceedings should they proceed.
Key ingredients for a successful mediation
Mediation can take place at any stage of a dispute. In a Chinese or broader Asian context, it is important to ensure that the key decision-makers are committed to the process, that there is authority to settle from both sides, and that any language barriers in engaging with the Chinese counterparties are adequately addressed. There is also great value in putting in place open, effective channels to gauge and manage expectations on both sides, as Chinese companies, especially state-owned entities, may have in mind non-monetary goals and terms, which are often well worth exploring.
Arbitration – the building blocks of a winning strategy
Formulating a winning strategy for the arbitration starts with building the right team. In complex, cross-borders disputes, this could include lawyers, advocates, local counsel, quantum and other experts, foreign law experts, forensic investigators, e-discovery professionals and document review teams. The makeup of such a team clearly requires careful thought and coordination.
The same is also true of managing teams of a large size and breadth. What sometimes takes Chinese or Asian clients by surprise is the fact that, across the common law and civil law divide (or indeed within the same common law traditions), there can exist wholly different approaches and expectations to the roles and responsibilities of both lawyers and expert witnesses. For example, in the US expert witnesses are seen as part of the client’s legal team, whereas they are regarded as independent in the UK and owe an overriding duty to assist the court or arbitral tribunal. Particular care is needed in advising those parties that may have had experience of US litigation or who otherwise wish to have direct involvement in obtaining quantum or other expert input.
Equally important is the decision as to who to appoint as arbitrator. Aside from the usual considerations such as experience, legal qualifications and language skills, some repeat users of arbitration are beginning to understand and appreciate the voice and impact of an arbitrator candidate on the arbitral tribunal as a whole. This reflects the growing sophistication of Chinese litigants in selecting both arbitrators and lawyers, as they increasingly recognise and value skills in bridging what are often competing narratives from the East and the West.
For those of you who were unable to attend the session and would like to receive a copy of the recording, please contact events@crsblaw.com.
