3 December 2025
Arbitration Matters Bulletin: December 2025
Key updates, clear impactWelcome to the first edition of the Arbitration Matters Bulletin from DLA Piper’s International Arbitration Group. This bulletin provides concise updates on a selection of recent arbitration-related developments worldwide, with a focus on the practical implications for you, our clients.
Reforms to English Arbitration Act 1996 enter into force
In August, the Arbitration Act 2025 entered into force, representing the first substantive reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996 in almost 30 years. Key changes include: a new default rule that if an arbitration agreement is silent on its governing law, the applicable law will be that of the arbitral seat; an express power for arbitrators to make awards on a summary basis; and, clarifying the time limit for challenging arbitration awards before the English courts in specific circumstances.
Chloe Mears, Legal Director, London, comments:
“While far short of a wholesale re-writing of English arbitration law, the reforms introduced are significant and reflect some of the key developments in arbitration law and practice since 1996, such as the arrival of emergency arbitration. The reforms also reinforce London’s position as a leading arbitral jurisdiction by bringing welcome clarity to some disputed areas of arbitration procedure. Parties should continue to have confidence when choosing England as a seat (legal place) of arbitration.”
For more information, see our briefing note:
Ciarb demystifies third-party funding
The Ciarb Guideline on Third-Party Funding provides a useful overview of third-party funding (TPF) in international arbitration. The guideline explains how funding works, the evaluation process, types of funding agreements, typical commercial terms and pricing structures, and the funder’s payout. The role of After the Event (ATE) insurance in managing the risk of adverse costs awards is also addressed. The guide examines funding’s role in the arbitration process, including case management implications, funder involvement in the conduct of proceedings, disclosure requirements, conflicts of interest, advances on costs, security for costs, and recoverability of TPF costs.
Mapanza Nkwilimba, Partner, Doha, comments:
“We regularly advise clients facing payment and insolvency risks, for whom TPF can mitigate exposure, monetise claims, or preserve capital for core operations. The guideline offers a practical roadmap, enabling parties and counsel to navigate funding mechanisms confidently. TPF is demystified by clarifying key terms and relevant considerations. It promotes transparency, robust due diligence (of both claims and funders), and tailored funding solutions. By encouraging early disclosure of TPF arrangements and effective case management, these guidelines also support strategic decision making in complex arbitration scenarios.”
Brussels takes (another) step to end intra-EU arbitration under the ECT
The European Union has approved an inter se agreement, endorsed by all Member States except Hungary, confirming that the dispute settlement clause of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is inapplicable to intra-EU investment disputes. This interpretation aligns with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Komstroy judgment and the June 2024 political declaration by the same Member States. The agreement unequivocally states that the dispute resolution clause of the ECT “cannot and never could serve as a legal basis for intra-EU arbitration proceedings”, notwithstanding continued jurisdictional assertions by arbitral tribunals.
David Kohegyi, Partner, Hungary, comments:
“The inter-se agreement (once it becomes effective) decisively reinforces the Komstroy judgment, affirming that the ECT’s investor-state arbitration clause is inapplicable to intra-EU disputes. Although arbitral tribunals seated outside the EU may continue asserting jurisdiction, enforcement within the EU faces near-certain refusal, rendering these proceedings commercially and strategically less attractive. Hungary’s refusal to sign introduces a narrow, technical argument for jurisdiction – particularly in pending cases.”
China amends arbitration law
Amendments to the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China will take effect from 1 March 2026. Notable among the reforms is the first statutory definition in the PRC of the “seat of arbitration”, plus accompanying rules, including that an award is deemed rendered at the seat and that the law of the seat shall govern the arbitration proceedings. The doctrine of the separability of the arbitration agreement is also broadened: an arbitration agreement’s validity is now insulated not only from the termination or invalidity of the main contract, but also from its non-existence or rescission.
Kelvin Chen, Partner, China, comments:
“The amendments fall well short of an overhaul, yet they surgically align practice in Mainland China with global norms. The introduction of the arbitration seat concept brings welcome certainty to award nationality and challenge grounds, reinforcing confidence in choosing Mainland China as a legal place of arbitration.”
AAA-ICDR launches AI-Arbitrator for construction disputes
The AAA-ICDR has released an AI arbitrator tool to deliver faster and lower-cost dispute resolution for documents-only construction cases (for now). The AI arbitrator has been trained on more than 1,500 construction awards, actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases, and was tested by experienced arbitrators on the AAA-ICDR Construction Panel. The AI arbitrator will generate recommendations and prepare draft awards, which will be evaluated and revised by human arbitrators before the award is finalised.
Alice Adu Gyamfi, Associate, New York, comments:
“In a high-volume, fast-paced sector such as construction arbitration, quick and reasoned resolutions are essential. Couple this with the increasing demand for AI-driven efficiency, the AI arbitrator could reshape lower-value construction cases by significantly compressing timelines and standardising outcomes. While the model’s ‘human-in-the-loop’ design addresses concerns related to due process and trustworthiness, questions remain on: (i) enforceability and whether AAA-ICDR will see a rise in attacks on awards produced by the AI arbitrator; and (ii) bias management, which is critical for any AI system.”
Abu Dhabi court confirms jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunctions
The Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance reconfirmed its jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in support of arbitration agreements, including restraining proceedings in the Abu Dhabi onshore courts. While the court confirmed that an ASI may be granted where it is “just and convenient”, the court declined to grant the relief sought in part because the applicant had not shown a “high degree of probability” that a valid arbitration agreement existed.
Celia Johnson-Morgan, Senior Associate, Dubai, comments:
“The ruling demonstrates the court’s pro-arbitration stance while underscoring the need for parties to ensure that the requirements for obtaining injunctive relief are properly met to allow the court to exercise its discretion. When working with clients on selecting an appropriate seat of arbitration, the availability of judicial anti-suit relief is often a relevant consideration. As such, the decision in A22 and B22 v C22 provides welcome clarity.”
For further information, see:
Peru found liable for acts of a local community in mining dispute
An ICSID tribunal recently awarded a Canadian mining company compensation for Peru’s failure to protect the company’s investment in a gold mine which was blockaded and seized by a rural community (the Parán Community), in breach of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Peru. The tribunal decided that the acts of the Parán Community – found to be an organ of the State of Peru – were attributable to Peru under the customary international law rules of attribution as set out in the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility.
Barry Fletcher, Senior Knowledge Lawyer, London, comments:
“The tribunal's decision in Lupaka Gold Corp v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/46) has been referred to as a “world first”. This is a notable development for respondent States and investor claimants involved in similarly complex, fact-and-law-sensitive, and often highly politicised disputes. While the award does not have precedential value, I expect that future actions of both States and investors will be guided by the award in similar or analogous circumstances.”
Arbitration Matters
A well-understood and effective international dispute resolution mechanism is crucial when challenges arise in a complex and rapidly changing world. Put another way, “Arbitration Matters”.
In the Arbitration Matters publication series, DLA Piper’s International Arbitration Group provides insight and thought leadership on key issues that impact international arbitration globally.
Learn more about the firm’s international arbitration capabilities.
Subscribe to our Arbitration Matters newsletter.
