KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 10 (September 2026)
November 7, 2026
The Institute of Transnational Arbitration (ITA), in collaboration with the ITA Board of Reporters, is happy to inform you that the latest ITA Arbitration Report was published: a free email subscription service available at KluwerArbitration.com delivering timely reports on awards, cases, legislation and current developments from over 60 countries and 12 institutions. To get your free subscription to the ITA Arbitration Report, click here.
The ITA Board of Reporters have reported on the following court decisions:
Arthur Dong, ITA Reporter for China
On 27 March 2026, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court set aside a CIETAC arbitral award, holding that the award contradicts with public interest, given that the award upheld an investment contract under which the target company carries out surrogacy services, despite surrogacy is illegal in China. The court held that surrogacy instrumentalizes and commodifies women and tramples upon human dignity, offending the public order and good morals embodied in the Civil Code of China. Where a contract is structured as an equity transfer to disguise an arrangement organizing cross-border surrogacy, an award enforcing that contract gives judicial effect to conduct which Chinese regulatory prohibits, and must be set aside.
Arthur Dong, ITA Reporter for China
In 2024, Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court, Zhejiang Province granted recognition of a SIAC arbitral award. While the underlying contract did not specify the law governing the arbitration agreement, the Court held that Singapore law as the lex arbitri governs the arbitration agreement, and conducted ex officio ascertainment on legal test of arbitration agreement’s validity under Singapore law. In addition to finding that the arbitration agreement is valid, the Court also held that the respondent’s company deregistration, which occurred before the issuance of the award but was later revoked, did not deprive its legal standing in the recognition proceedings. Finding there is no ground for refusal of recognition under Article V of the New York Convention, the Court recognized the award.
Eduardo Zuleta Jaramillo, ITA Reporter for Colombia
The Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia ruled on an application for annulment of an international arbitral award and a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by Powerchina International Group Limited. The Court held that an application for annulment must be filed within one month following notification of the award and dismissed Powerchina’s application as untimely. In ruling on the motion for reconsideration, the Court held that an international arbitral award seated in Colombia may be considered "domestic" only for enforcement purposes and remains subject to the regime established in Section III of Law 1563 of 2012 with respect to all other procedural and substantive matters.
Klaus Reichert, ITA Reporter for Ireland
The court held on, 8 July 2026, that it had jurisdiction under Article 27 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and s. 15 of the Arbitration Act 2010 to grant judicial assistance in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration (JAMS arbitration with seat in San Francisco), and that it was appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction here in the absence of the proposed witness.
Mladen Stojiljković, ITA Reporter for Switzerland
In A v. WADA and EADO, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reaffirmed a cornerstone of Swiss arbitration law: parties must raise alleged procedural defects when they occur, not after an adverse award. Significantly, the Court held that the duty to object arises even where the tribunal has rejected an evidentiary request without yet disclosing its reasons. The decision reflects Switzerland’s strict approach to waiver under Article 182(4) PILA and underscores the importance of promptly preserving due process objections during the arbitration itself.
Mladen Stojiljković, ITA Reporter for Switzerland
A tribunal's refusal to stay an arbitration is not subject to challenge, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has confirmed. Rejecting a challenge against a tribunal's refusal to stay a WIPO arbitration seated in Geneva, the Court reiterated its settled case law that decisions granting or refusing a stay are mere procedural orders rather than arbitral awards. As such, they are not subject to challenge.
Mladen Stojiljković, ITA Reporter for Switzerland
Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirms CAS award in gymnastics judging-manipulation case; rejects due process and public policy challenges: The Court held that a disciplined gymnastics judge and jury president had been sufficiently informed of the allegations against her in the CAS de novo appeal proceedings and therefore suffered no violation of the right to be heard under Article 190(2)(d) Private International Law Act. It further rejected reliance on Semenya v. Switzerland and Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights as a basis for annulment under procedural public policy on the facts of the case.
United Arab Emirates: X v. Y, Court of Cassation of Abu Dhabi, Case No. 244 of 2026, 06 April 2026
Malak Nasreddine and Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri, ITA Reporters for the United Arab Emirates
This case concerned whether court proceedings were admissible where the underlying memorandum of understanding contained an arbitration clause, and whether the respondents had expressly or implicitly waived their right to rely on that clause. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation held that reliance on an arbitration clause is a procedural right rather than a matter of public order, and may be waived expressly or implicitly. However, implicit waiver requires the party relying on arbitration to have addressed the merits before invoking the arbitration clause. On the facts, no express or implicit waiver was established, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Malak Nasreddine and Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri, ITA Reporters for the United Arab Emirates
This case concerned whether an arbitration agreement contained in a main construction contract could extend to parties to related contracts arising out of the same construction project, including subcontractors who were not signatories to the main contract and whose related agreements did not expressly restate the arbitration clause. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation held that, where the related contracts formed part of an interconnected contractual framework and confirmed the continuing force of the main contract’s terms, the arbitration agreement was binding across the dispute, and the court proceedings were inadmissible.
Malak Nasreddine and Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri, ITA Reporters for the United Arab Emirates
This case involved an urgent application before the DIFC Court of First Instance for interim injunctive relief restraining the continuation of an evidentiary hearing in DIAC arbitration proceedings seated in the DIFC, and for an order setting aside or suspending the arbitral tribunal’s procedural decision dated 19 February 2025. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the tribunal’s procedural rulings were case management decisions, not arbitral awards capable of being set aside under Article 41 of DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008 (the DIFC Arbitration Law). The Court further held that no serious procedural irregularity, denial of due process, or other basis for exceptional judicial intervention had been established.
Enrique Molina, ITA Reporter for the United States of America
The arbitration exception to foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), supplies subject matter jurisdiction over an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award against a foreign state or its instrumentality without requiring that the underlying commercial dispute have any nexus to the United States. Even assuming a foreign state instrumentality is a ‘person’ entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protection, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it comports with due process where reasonable, applying the three-factor reasonableness inquiry articulated in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. 1 (2025). The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, because the Convention makes recognition and enforcement mandatory absent an enumerated Article V defense, and only a United States court can attach a foreign sovereign’s commercial assets located within the United States.
Elliot Friedman, Ruth Montiel, and Adam Weir, ITA Reporters for the United States of America
This decision concerns the time limit in U.S. courts for enforcing an award issued under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the "Washington Convention"). The Award was issued in favor of the predecessors in interest of Titan Consortium 1, LLC ("Titan") against the Argentine Republic. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the ‘District Court’) found that the petition was timely and enforced the Award, and Argentina appealed. The issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "D.C. Circuit") was whether the District Court erred in deciding that a twelve-year statute of limitations applied to Titan’s enforcement action under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the United States statute governing enforcement of Washington Convention awards. The twelve-year period derived from the District of Columbia’s local code for the enforcement of money judgments. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that Titan’s enforcement action was timely.
Elliot Friedman and Christian Vandergeest, ITA Reporters for the United States of America
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a district court judgment recognizing and enforcing a UNCITRAL arbitral award of approximately $59 million against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ("Venezuela") in favor of Venezuela US SRL ("VUS"), a Barbadian company that held an indirect interest in a Venezuelan oil field. Venezuela argued that the district court’s recognition and enforcement of the award violated United States public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, because the arbitral tribunal had permitted Nicolás Maduro to replace Venezuela’s counsel ahead of the damages phase of the arbitration, despite the fact that Maduro was at that time no longer recognized by the United States as the head of the Venezuelan government. The majority applied and extended Valores Mundiales, S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to hold that neither the President’s exclusive constitutional power to recognize foreign governments, nor other public policy considerations raised only by the dissent (i.e., the right to be heard, the right to adequate representation, the right to counsel, respect for foreign sovereignty, and separation of powers), warranted denying recognition and enforcement of the award. Circuit Judge Walker dissented, concluding that the award should not be recognized because its recognition would offend deeply rooted U.S. public policies flowing from the President’s exclusive recognition power.
Kevin O’Gorman and Taylor LeMay, ITA Reporters for the United States of America
This decision concerns a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action filed by borrowers against an online consumer lender affiliated with the Otoe-Missouria Tribe (the "Tribe"). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of the lender’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties lacked mutual assent because the arbitration agreement directed the arbitrator to apply a body of law that did not yet exist, leaving the parties without reasonable certainty as to what they had agreed to.
Kevin O’Gorman and Taylor LeMay, ITA Reporters for the United States of America
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an arbitrator exceeded her authority under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") by issuing a final award of $10,000 in punitive damages without conducting the post-award review expressly required by the arbitration agreement. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to further remand to the arbitrator for the mandated post-award review.
Enrique Molina, ITA Reporter for the United States of America
A partial arbitration award that fully and finally resolves a discrete set of contract claims is ‘sufficiently final’ for confirmation under the FAA, notwithstanding that a separate, severable counterclaim remains pending before the same arbitrator. The exclusive grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting an arbitration award are those enumerated in Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA (Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584, 587 (2008)). Judicially created bases for vacatur, including a claim that a party’s own counsel was so deficient as to have deprived it of representation, do not survive Hall Street and cannot be repackaged as a claim that the arbitrator failed to render a ‘mutual, final, and definite award’ under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4).
Bethel Kassa, ITA Reporter for the United States of America
An attorney must be authorized to file a petition for enforcement of an arbitration award and challenge as to an attorney's authorization can be raised at any stage of the enforcement proceedings.
Bethel Kassa, ITA Reporter for the United States of America
While foreign sovereigns are generally immune from suits in the US, a court can exercise jurisdiction over actions to enforce arbitration awards against foreign sovereigns pursuant to the arbitration exception provided under the FSIA. Challenges as to the arbitrability of the underlying dispute are not jurisdictional but merit defenses.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
November 1, 2026