Blog

The enforceability of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses has long been a contested question in international arbitration. One recurring issue is whether parties can be bound to attempt mediation before resorting to arbitration or litigation. In CSW v PPSB 22/04619 (2024), the Dutch Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on this matter, clarifying that mediation clauses […]

The principle of finality lies at the heart of arbitration. Parties who voluntarily submit their disputes to arbitration are generally bound by the resulting award, subject only to the limited statutory grounds for challenge. Courts in arbitration-friendly jurisdictions have consistently guarded this principle by resisting attempts to reopen disputes through indirect means. The recent decision

One of the traditional advantages of litigation over arbitration is the availability of summary judgment procedures, which allow courts to dispose of unmeritorious claims or defences at an early stage. To achieve similar efficiencies, institutions such as the HKIAC, SIAC, and ICC have introduced early or summary determination procedures, enabling tribunals to dismiss claims or

Pathological arbitration clauses represent a persistent challenge in arbitration practice. Although arbitration agreements are intended to provide certainty and an efficient mechanism for dispute resolution, poorly drafted clauses often produce the opposite effect. Ambiguous, inconsistent, or incomplete arbitration provisions frequently give rise to jurisdictional disputes, resulting in delays & additional costs before the substantive dispute

The principle of finality is a cornerstone of international arbitration. Parties who submit disputes to arbitration expect the resulting award to be binding and enforceable, with only limited opportunities for judicial intervention. Courts rarely revisit an award’s merits, intervening only for exceptional circumstances like serious breaches of natural justice, exceeded mandates, or public policy violations.