Charles Russell Speechlys hosts its second International Arbitration Conference in London

On 12 September 2024 Charles Russell Speechlys hosted its second International Arbitration Conference. 

Senior dispute practitioners from Charles Russell Speechlys shared their insights on developments in international arbitration in London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The event took place at the Ivy, Tower Bridge. 

Following opening remarks by Thomas R. Snider, Partner and Head of International Arbitration at Charles Russell Speechlys, the panel discussed recent updates in leading arbitral seats.

• Steven Carey, partner in London, began with an overview of developments in England and Wales in the last year.  The most notable update is the Arbitration Bill which was featured in the King’s Speech and which proposes amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996. The bill is intended to facilitate more efficient dispute resolution, draw in more global business, and cement London as a preferred arbitral seat. 
• Simon Le Wita, partner in Paris, highlighted debate surrounding Article 25 of the Act of 13 June 2024, which some scholars think will revolutionise the French arbitration regime.  This Act is intended to further the French legal system’s goal of continuing and extending its arbitration-friendly approach. It also intends to ensure that French arbitration proceedings continue to have the highest degree of autonomy in the world. 
• Gareth Mills, partner in London, discussed the ongoing impact of Dubai’s Decree No. 34. Decree 34 of 2021 which effectively abolished the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration Centre (“DIFC-LCIA”) and the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (“EMAC”) and transferred its operations to the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). Gareth highlighted that parties have subsequently argued in the courts of numerous jurisdictions (including Singapore, Abu Dhabi and the United States), with various levels of success, that because of this change they did not consent to arbitrate before the DIAC (because the court they originally agreed to arbitrate in no longer exists). Gareth recommended that parties with existing arbitration agreements governed by the DIFC-LCIA or EMAC agree on where they will arbitrate if a dispute arises to ensure certainty vis a vis the application of such clauses.  Gareth also referred to recent developments in the arbitration landscapes of Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia where new rules and supporting legislation were transforming the arbitration landscape of the GCC region.  
• Peter Brabant, partner in Singapore, highlighted that following a shift to conscious investment and new technologies, arbitrations dealing with oil and gas and renewables disputes have and will continue to increase. Recent amendments to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) rules which intend to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of SIAC arbitrations were also mentioned. Additionally, Peter mentioned that it is easy to consolidate proceedings in the SIAC, making it an efficient centre to arbitrate in if there are a number of disputes within the same deal or transaction. 
• Stephen Chan, partner in Hong Kong, explained how freezing orders made under the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) rules can be directly enforced in mainland China. Stephen pointed out that this power is exclusive to the HKIAC, and as there are relatively few requirements to the enforcement of such injunctions most applications are successful. 

In the Q&A that followed, an audience member asked whether international arbitration is truly ‘international’. The panel recognised the complexity of this topic, but pointed out that despite geopolitical challenges, the global reach of international arbitration continues to grow.