Arbitration Update: October 2026 | Cooke, Young & Keidan

We outline below the significant arbitration developments since our last update:

The Commercial Court upholds an LCIA Award arising out of a family dispute between members of a prominent family.
The English Court of Appeal confirms that ratification of the New York Convention does not waive state immunity.
A brief overview of LCIA’s 2025 Annual Casework Report.

If any of the topics are of interest, please do not hesitate to reach out.

1. The Commercial Court upholds an LCIA Award arising out of a family dispute between members of a prominent family.

This case is an illustrative recent example of arbitration being used to determine substantial private wealth disputes.

In A & Ors v E [2026] EWHC 2590 (BP), the Claimants challenged a London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) Award that granted relief to the Defendant. The Defendant (E) was the holding company of a substantial private group of companies founded and owned by a family. The Claimants were members of that family who operated the Defendant’s subsidiaries in a particular country (Country G).

The arbitration concerned the arrangement under which the Claimants held shares and director/shareholder positions in those companies. The Tribunal ruled that the Claimants held the shares and positions as nominees of the Defendant.

The Claimants sought to challenge the Award on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction (under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”)), and/or that there was a serious irregularity in the Tribunal’s definition of the subsidiaries caught by their PFA (a challenge under s. 68 of the 1996 Act).

The arbitration agreement was contained in a deed which the Claimants had signed confirming the nominee arrangement (the “Deed”). This Deed gave the Defendant the right to refer disputes to arbitration under the LCIA rules, without granting the Claimants the same right. The Court confirmed that “an agreement to arbitrate can be unilateral” and that “there is no support for an argument that a unilateral promise to arbitrate which is binding because it is part of a deed is not an arbitration agreement”.

The Claimants’ other arguments to challenge the Award also failed. Those arguments being:

The Deed was conditional, but the conditions precedent were not fulfilled. The Court found that the deed on its face (and in the light of contemporaneous documents) was unconditional. Interestingly, and touching upon an area of particular importance (that of whether the arbitration agreement has been validly concluded if it is contained in a contract that may not have been), the Court held that even if there were conditions as to the enforceability of the Deed, this would not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement.
The Deed conferred on the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine disputes under the Deed alone and that consequently it had no jurisdiction to determine any nominee arrangement pre-dating the Deed. The Court held that the Tribunal was “aware of the limits of its jurisdiction” and, when it came to relief, limited its declaration to the effect of the deed (which fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction).
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the withdrawals or payment of salaries pre-dating the deed (on the basis that these are unconnected to the Deed). The Court held that “[t]he subject matter of the Deed is the past and present relationship between the Claimants and the Defendant, its board and shareholders” and that he was “satisfied that this brings within it disputes as to the [w]ithdrawals and [s]alaries”.
The serious-irregularity challenge (under s. 68 of the 1996 Act). The Claimants argued that the definition of Country G Entities applied in the glossary to the Award was overly broad and capable of including entities owned and operated by the Claimants which do not fall within the Group. The Court found that there was “no basis for any complaint about the definition in the glossary, let alone a complaint meeting the very high threshold for serious irregularity”.

This case is an important affirmation of the high threshold for a successful challenge to an Award, and a reminder that parties may be bound by an arbitration agreement even in circumstances where that agreement does not give all parties equal rights to initiate proceedings.

2. The English Court of Appeal confirms that ratification of the New York Convention does not waive state immunity

The English Court of Appeal in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v Republic of India [2026] EWCA Civ 797 considered whether India’s ratification of the New York Convention 1958 (the “Convention”) amounted to a submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts under section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (the “SIA”) as a preliminary issue.

The dispute arose from two arbitral awards obtained by Mauritian investors against India in UNCITRAL arbitrations seated in the Hague, pursuant to the Mauritius–India bilateral investment treaty. The investors obtained permission to enforce the awards in England, which India challenged on grounds of state immunity. The investors argued that India’s ratification of the Convention constituted a submission to jurisdiction by “prior written agreement” under section 2(2) of the SIA. The Commercial Court rejected this argument, and the investors appealed.

The primary question before the Court of Appeal was whether Article III of the Convention, which requires contracting states to recognise and enforce awards in accordance with “the rules of procedure” of the enforcing jurisdiction, amounted to an “unequivocal submission to jurisdiction” as per the test approved by the Supreme Court in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL [2026] UKSC 9. Applying the definition from Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62, that “rules of procedure” are rules that prevent a claim from proceeding for reasons unrelated to its legal merits, the Court of Appeal held that state immunity was such a rule – i.e., a rule of procedure – and was therefore preserved by Article III.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Commercial Court’s decision, finding that India’s ratification of the New York Convention alone had not waived its state immunity, which was consistent with similar findings by Australian, German and US courts. It will be interesting to see whether the English courts nonetheless finds that India has waived state immunity on other ground(s) in due course. This decision remains prescient in the meantime as it confirms that domestic rules on state immunity override the Convention’s pro-enforcement approach.

3. A brief overview of LCIA’s 2025 Annual Casework Report

On 6 October 2026, the LCIA published its Annual Casework Report 2025 (the “Report”), providing an overview of its caseload and key procedural developments.

The LCIA received 365 referrals in 2025 (compared with 362 in 2024), including 320 arbitrations under the LCIA arbitration rules. Notably, 96% of LCIA arbitrations involved at least one non-UK party, with parties originating from 103 jurisdictions. London remained the preferred seat in 87% of cases, while English law governed 79% of disputes (pp. 3, 23 and 29). This reflects the findings of the 2025 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, which found that globally, London was the most preferred arbitral seat[1].

The Report highlights several interesting developments:

Early determination: Applications under Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA rules more than doubled, from 17 in 2024 to 38 in 2025, of which 10 were granted (compared with one in 2024);
Arbitrator diversity: In 2025, the highest proportion of women were appointed as arbitrators since the LCIA began reporting diversity statistics, with 38% female arbitrator appointments, up from 33% in 2024. 52% of appointments were of non-British arbitrators, up from 45% in 2024; and
Procedural efficiency: The LCIA reported median processing times of five days for expedited tribunal formation applications and two days for emergency arbitrator applications, showcasing the LCIA’s procedural efficiency in cases requiring expediency.

These developments are particularly interesting in light of the LCIA’s ongoing consultation on revisions to its arbitration rules, discussed in our April 2026 Arbitration Update. It remains to be seen how the revised rules, which are due to come into effect in 2027, will address issues such as early determination, expedited procedures and emergency arbitration, particularly given their growing usage.

[1] Page 7 of the Survey.