Comprehensive Repository
An extensive repository of arbitration and expert determination decisions across all major jurisdictions, maintained as a working reference. For curated leading cases, see our Leading Cases overview.
International Commercial Arbitration
Key decisions from supervisory courts addressing the conduct, procedure, enforcement and setting aside of international arbitral awards, including arbitrator bias, agreement validity, and multi-party disputes.
Supreme Court authority establishing that enforcement of a New York Convention award can be refused where an arbitration agreement was not validly formed with the respondent; national courts retain authority to review jurisdictional findings.
Supreme Court landmark on the law governing arbitration agreements; established that where parties have not expressly stated the governing law, the express choice for the main contract generally applies, subject to seat exceptions.
Supreme Court authority on the duty of disclosure of potential conflicts by arbitrators; addressed circumstances in which an arbitrator’s failure to disclose appointments in related references gives rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality.
Supreme Court authority on how to apply the law governing arbitration agreements where not expressly stated; upheld refusal of recognition and enforcement of a Paris-seated award.
Introduced the “presumption in favour of one-stop adjudication”; broad arbitration clauses encompass all disputes including fraud claims affecting contract validity; separability doctrine protects the arbitration agreement.
Confirmed the narrow pro-enforcement approach to public policy exceptions under the New York Convention; award enforced despite allegation of fraud in underlying contract performance.
High Court decision on the constitutional validity of the International Arbitration Act 1974 and the limited scope of judicial review of international awards under the New York Convention and Model Law.
Landmark High Court decision on the functus officio doctrine and tribunal’s authority post-interim awards; established that de novo review applies when assessing whether a tribunal exceeded jurisdiction under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law.
Singapore Court of Appeal authority on the grounds for setting aside international arbitral awards, including the public policy ground and the approach to breach of natural justice challenges.
Found breach of natural justice where a tribunal extensively copied portions from awards in parallel arbitrations; award set aside for procedural unfairness in the determination process.
Dismissed appeal against refusal to set aside an award, reaffirming the principle of minimal curial intervention in arbitral proceedings under Singapore law.
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal authority on the enforcement of arbitral awards and the treatment of related proceedings across multiple jurisdictions; addressed the preclusion doctrine in international arbitration.
Addressed enforcement of a £16 million award following contractual disputes relating to supply of communications systems; considered state immunity issues in the enforcement of commercial arbitral awards.
Distinguished between contract formation and contract validity in the separability doctrine; established that separability applies only to challenges to validity, not to challenges to formation of the underlying contract.
Domestic Arbitration
Significant decisions addressing the conduct, procedure, judicial supervision and multi-tiered dispute resolution in domestic arbitration proceedings.
High Court authority ordering stay under section 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act despite validity challenges; interpreted section 8(1) to require mandatory stay when an arbitration agreement exists.
High Court decision on the grounds for setting aside domestic arbitral awards, including the distinction between errors of law on the face of the award and jurisdictional errors.
NSW Court of Appeal authority on the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the circumstances in which a court will refer parties to arbitration in multi-party disputes.
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal held that pre-conditions to arbitration (negotiation/mediation) are matters of admissibility, not jurisdiction; properly addressed by the tribunal rather than the court.
Singapore Court of Appeal authority on the grounds for setting aside domestic awards on the basis of breach of natural justice, establishing the framework for the court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Established robust approach to deciding whether a dispute exists for purposes of stay applications; adopted the “unequivocal judicial policy of facilitating arbitration” in Singapore.
Addressed the scope of arbitral jurisdiction in multi-contract construction disputes and the treatment of related claims arising under different contracts within a single arbitration proceeding.
Expert Determination
Expert determination is a contractual dispute resolution mechanism in which a neutral expert is appointed to determine a defined question. The following decisions address the nature, enforceability, manifest error standard and scope of expert determinations.
High Court authority establishing that expert determination is binding where conducted in accordance with contract provisions; prevents legal proceedings on the same subject matter. Distinguished expert determination from arbitration standards.
Supreme Court defined manifest error: arguable errors are insufficient; must be “so obvious and obviously capable of affecting the determination as to admit of no difference of opinion.” Narrow “howler” interpretation maintained.
Declared parties not bound by expert determination due to manifest errors; found two “impossible steps” in the expert’s calculation formula constituted obvious errors warranting the determination being set aside.
Queensland Court of Appeal defined manifest error as “obvious rather than arguable” or “easily demonstrable without extensive investigation”; the error must appear on the face of the determination.
Court of Appeal authority on the binding nature of expert determinations; an expert determination is final and binding unless the expert has departed from instructions or has acted in manifest error.
Considered the distinction between expert determination and arbitration, the nature of the expert’s function, and the circumstances in which a determination may be challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness or departure from agreed terms.
Found one aspect of the determination not manifestly erroneous as based on matters of opinion and professional judgment; another aspect was manifestly erroneous due to a clear interpretation error by the expert.
Addressed the scope of the expert determiner’s jurisdiction and the consequences of determining matters outside the terms of appointment. Considered partial enforceability of expert determinations.
Western Australian authority on the enforceability of expert determination clauses in construction contracts; distinguished expert determination as a condition precedent to arbitration from expert determination as a final resolution mechanism.
Singapore authority on the role of expert determiners in construction disputes and the interaction between contractual expert determination mechanisms and statutory adjudication under SOPA.
Investment Treaty Arbitration
Investment treaty arbitration involving construction and infrastructure disputes represents a significant category of ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings, addressing expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and damages quantification.
Established the “Salini test” for determining whether a construction contract constitutes an “investment” for ICSID jurisdiction: contribution, duration, risk, and contribution to the host state’s development.
Addressed the treatment of construction contract disputes within the investment treaty framework, including the distinction between ordinary commercial disputes and claims of expropriation in major infrastructure projects.
Considered the treatment of construction and concession disputes under bilateral investment treaties, the standard of fair and equitable treatment, and the quantification of damages in complex infrastructure arbitrations.
Early ICSID case involving infrastructure services (water) concession dispute; addressed investment treaty protections in the infrastructure context and the scope of ICSID jurisdiction over concession agreements.
Tribunal rejected claims of fair and equitable treatment violations in a petroleum distribution dispute; addressed the standard of investor protection in the energy and infrastructure sector.
Found that protection of the investor’s reasonable and legitimate expectations is the most important element of the fair and equitable treatment standard in energy infrastructure investment disputes.
ICSID tribunal found that changes to the renewable energy regime frustrated the investor’s legitimate expectations under Energy Charter Treaty fair and equitable treatment protections.
House of Lords addressed an arbitrator’s powers in award issuance in a major infrastructure arbitration, particularly regarding currency selection and pre-award interest provisions.
