2025 Year in Review: Arbitration-related Developments in England and Wales and Ireland

2025 has been another important year of arbitration developments in England and Wales (see here, here, and here) as well as in Ireland (see here). As part of the 2025 Year in Review series, this post considers the key judicial, legislative, and other developments in England and Wales in the past year, as well as highlights from Ireland's arbitration landscape.

Judicial Developments in England and Wales

Arbitration and Foreign Courts

The English courts continue to grapple with jurisdictional issues faced by parties that have opted for arbitration and, in particular, the ongoing effects of the Lugovoy Law (for previous coverage, see here, here, and here, and most recently, here). In JP Morgan Securities PLC & Ors v VTB Bank PJSC [2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm), applications were made by the claimants to the Commercial Court to inter alia make final the interim anti-suit injunctions granted by Mr Justice Andrew Baker in December 2024 to two companies in the JP Morgan group to restrain VTB from pursuing various proceedings in Russia against them, and for anti-enforcement injunctions to be issued against VTB. 

The Commercial Court granted final anti-suit injunctions on the basis of the contractually agreed arbitration agreements and, alternatively, on the basis that the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. The decision also considered other interesting issues, including when, and if so, in what circumstances, it will be a breach of an arbitration agreement for one party to bring claims against a non-party. An appeal remains outstanding for the case, and there may well be further developments to be seen in 2026. 

Investment Arbitration Awards in the English Courts

The English Courts have also seen a number of high-profile challenges to investment arbitration awards over the past year. 

First, a new chapter was added to the long-running dispute between Josef Stava and Diag Human SE with the Czech Republic (see here). In May 2025, the Court of Appeal in Czech Republic v Diag Human SE [2025] EWCA Civ 588 considered three appeals in relation to the arbitration award made by an investment tribunal pursuant to the Czech-Switzerland BIT, the first by Mr Stava and Diag SE, and the latter two by the Czech Republic. While first two appeals were dismissed, the Court of Appeal upheld the second of the two appeals advanced by the Czech Republic, which dealt with the question of whether, as a result of placing the shares in Diag SE in a trust in 2011, the company ceased to be controlled by Mr Stava, with the consequence that it no longer fell within the definition of investor in Article 1(1) of the BIT. The Court found that Mr Stava no longer had control of Diag SE in a sense necessary for the company to qualify as an investor under the BIT.

Second, in Korea v Elliott Associates LP [2025] EWCA Civ 905, the Court of Appeal upheld Korea’s jurisdictional challenge (see here), overturning the Commercial Court's earlier decision. In particular, in interpreting the underlying treaty (Chapter 11 of the Korea–US Free Trade Agreement), the Court of Appeal agreed with Korea in holding that the "scope and coverage" requirements of Article 11.1(1) of the treaty set down jurisdictional conditions which must be satisfied in order for there to be an offer to arbitrate.

Finally, the Commercial Court also had the opportunity to consider the question of whether an ICSID award rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty can be assigned to a third party. In OperaFund Eco-Invest and Schwab Holding v Spain [2025] EWHC 2874, the Court held that the enforcement of an ICSID or ECT award cannot be assigned pursuant to either instrument. It further held that there is no rule of customary international law that provides either that such awards are assignable or not assignable, and that the claim to register the award in the English courts does not create new substantive rights that may become assignable. In light of the preponderance of funding arrangements entered into by claimants in investor-state cases, this decision may be of important significance to funders looking to enforce investment awards in this jurisdiction. 

Other Issues Addressed by the English Courts

Besides challenges to investment awards, the English Courts also addressed a broad range of other interesting issues. For example, the Commercial Court in A Corporation v Firm B and Mr W [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) considered the extent of confidentiality obligations in an arbitration and, in particular, when information from one arbitration can be used in another. As covered by the Blog here, in deciding that the requirements for a mandatory injunction preventing a law firm's Asia office from continuing to act in an arbitration are not made out, the Court provided useful guidance on the scope of confidential material and what is generally not confidential.

In the case of Deinon Insurance Brokers LLC v Reen [2025] EWHC 1263 (Comm), as covered here, the Commercial Court dismissed an application brought by award debtors seeking to stay the enforcement and execution of six money judgments. In doing so, the Court confirmed the high bar to its discretion to stay execution in cases involving money judgments. It also confirmed the pro-arbitration stance of English courts and dismissed the application as an abuse of process and an attempt to revisit matters already decided by the tribunal.

A further development of the P&ID v Nigeria saga (previously covered here and here) also took place in 2025. In a judgment of 22 October 2025, the Supreme Court addressed the question of when, if ever, a court should make an award of costs in a foreign currency. P&ID argued that the cost order against it should be in Nigerian naira instead of sterling because the value of naira had fallen significantly against other currencies, including sterling, such that payment in sterling now would give Nigeria a substantial windfall at P&ID's expense. In its judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed P&ID's appeal, holding that a costs order is not intended to provide compensation for loss in the same way as awards of damages in tort or for breach of contract. Given that Nigeria's English solicitors and counsel have conducted the litigation on behalf of Nigeria in London courts and have charged Nigeria in sterling, with Nigeria paying those bills also in sterling, there is no reason to award costs in any other currency than sterling.

English Arbitration Act 2025

As for legislative developments, the long-awaited amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 were finally passed into law this year. The Arbitration Act 2025 received Royal Assent and came into force on 1 August 2025. The Blog has closely followed the development in the past months (see, e.g., here and here).

Given that the new Act, for the most part, does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendments' entry into force or court proceedings in connection with such arbitral proceedings pursuant to Section 17(4)(a), there have not been any significant cases to date dealing with those amendments. However, that is likely to change in 2026 as the English Courts begin to grapple substantively with the effects of the new Act.

Other Notable Developments

Aside from the annual London International Disputes Week (see coverage of the 2025 edition of the event by the Blog here), 2025 saw the inaugural London Arbitration Week take place in the first week of December (see here and here). The event saw a congregation of the London arbitration community in a week of discussions on diverse and timely topics ranging from technology, the role of courts in the arbitral process, to London's position as a leading arbitral seat for foreign users. 

The London Court of International Arbitration, the leading arbitral institution of the jurisdiction, maintains its popularity worldwide according to the 2025 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey, as one of the top five sets of rules preferred by users (see coverage here). In the same survey, London remains the most preferred seat of arbitration globally. 

Arbitration-related Developments in Ireland

Across the Irish Sea, a new Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 was initiated on 1 December 2025. The proposed Bill is primarily aimed at enabling Ireland to give effect to international agreements concerned with the protection of investments, such as (but not limited to) the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU and its Member States. The new provisions deal with inter alia the enforcement of awards made pursuant to an international agreement, and appeals in relation to an application for enforcement of such awards.

Looking Ahead to 2026

2026 will continue to be a busy year for both England and Wales and Ireland in the arbitration space. For Ireland, the new year is likely to see the implementation of new legislative amendments as discussed above.

For England and Wales, the Courts will be dealing with appeals that are eagerly monitored by the arbitration community. In addition, it will also be worth noting if the Courts may have occasion to deal with issues arising from the Arbitration Act 2025. Given that the amendments effected by the new Act are aimed at ensuring that the legislative framework for international arbitration in England and Wales remains fit for purpose and continues to promote the UK as a leading destination for commercial arbitration, it will also be of interest to see if there are any changes to arbitration users' perception of the UK as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

The Blog will continue to monitor the arbitration developments in these jurisdictions and elsewhere in the coming year.