KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 4 (April 2026)
July 12, 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.
Inigo Kwan-Parsons, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, ITA Reporter for Australia
Australia’s highest court, the High Court of Australia, holds that a state’s ratification of the New York Convention, does not by itself, constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under Australian law.
Inigo Kwan-Parsons, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, ITA Reporter for Australia
The Supreme Court of Victoria upholds party autonomy by enforcing a ‘hybrid’ arbitration agreement that requires the parties to resolve their disputes as administered by an Australian arbitral institution (Resolution Institute) but applying the ICC Arbitration Rules.
Inigo Kwan-Parsons, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, ITA Reporter for Australia
The Federal Court of Australia affirms its balanced and contextual approach to enforcing a foreign arbitral award in circumstances where there exists a pending application to have that foreign arbitral award set-aside.
João Bosco Lee, Lee Taube Gabardo, ITA Reporter for Brazil
The Superior Court of Justice of Brazil (STJ) upheld the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate corporate disputes arising from a shareholders’ agreement containing an arbitration clause. The Court ruled that the later interdiction of one shareholder does not invalidate the arbitration clause, since the interdicted party may be represented by a court-appointed guardian. Furthermore, the Superior Court held that a state court cannot suspend arbitral proceedings or revoke arbitral measures, except under limited circumstances provided by the Brazilian Arbitration Act, and that judicial decisions contradicting a Superior Court ruling on arbitral competence constitute a violation of authority, subject to sanction.
João Bosco Lee, Lee Taube Gabardo, ITA Reporter for Brazil
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held that an association lacks standing to request the exhibition of an arbitral award through a production-of-evidence action when the document is not useful for any of the purposes listed in Article 381 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Because the arbitral award would not serve any evidentiary function capable of justifying or avoiding future litigation, enabling self-composition, or preserving a fact at risk of being lost, the Court deemed the association’s request legally irrelevant. On these grounds, the Superior Court recognized the appellee’s lack of active legitimacy and reinstated the trial court’s ruling the action without prejudice.
João Bosco Lee, Lee Taube Gabardo, ITA Reporter for Brazil
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the subsequent dissolution of the arbitral institution chosen by the parties does not render the arbitration agreement invalid, as the Parties’ will to submit disputes to arbitration prevails over the indication of a specific institution. The Court also reaffirmed that the arbitral tribunal has competence to decide on its own jurisdiction (kompetenz-kompetenz), including the validity and effectiveness of the clause.
João Bosco Lee, Lee Taube Gabardo, ITA Reporter for Brazil
The Court of Appeal of São Paulo held that a decision issued by the President of an arbitration chamber is administrative in nature. Therefore, if it does not arise from the arbitral tribunal's adjudicatory activity, the discussion does not concern the application of the Kompetenz-kompetenz principle but rather the judicial review of the lawfulness review of an act of a strictly administrative character. Since the challenged decision constituted a final administrative determination, not subject to appeal within the Arbitral Chamber, the parties have the right of access to justice under the principle of non-exclusion of judicial review (Article 5, XXXV of the Brazilian Constitution).
Klaus Reichert, Brick Court Chambers, ITA Reporter for Ireland
A misrepresentation claim directed at a main contract cannot, without independent grounds going to the arbitration clause itself, render that clause null and void — the arbitration agreement survives as a distinct and separable agreement, and the question of the main contract's validity is itself a matter for the arbitral tribunal.
Stephan Wilske, Gleiss Lutz, and Ismail G. Esin, Esin Attorney Partnership, ITA Reporters for Turkey
The 45th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals (‘Regional Court’) ruled that a creditor cannot initiate a direct bankruptcy lawsuit on the basis of an arbitral award. The Regional Court held that, as set forth in Article 177 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (‘EBL’), direct bankruptcy lawsuits may be filed on the basis of a judgment, and that an arbitral award does not constitute a judgment but rather a document having the force of a judgment under Article 38 of the EBL. On this basis, the Regional Court overturned the decision of the Istanbul Anatolian 1st Commercial Court of First Instance (‘Commercial Court’) and dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds due to the absence of a required procedural condition.
Stephan Wilske, Gleiss Lutz, and Ismail G. Esin, Esin Attorney Partnership, ITA Reporters for Turkey
On 2 October 2025, the 31st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals (‘Court of Appeals’) set aside a judgment by the Ankara 14th Commercial Court of First Instance (‘Court of First Instance’) which enforced an ICC arbitral award, remanding the case without reaching the merits because the ‘proportional judgment fee’ under Law No. 492 on Fees (‘Fees Law’) had not been fully collected. As the Turkish Constitutional Court had clarified in 2024, enforcement actions for foreign judgments and awards are not subject to a flat fee, but rather a proportional ‘judgment and writ’ fee calculated on the adjudged value instead. As the regulations under the Fees Law relate to the public order, courts must verify ex officio whether the judgment fee has been fully paid – even if the parties themselves do not raise the issue. If the fee is not fully paid, a first-instance court will grant an additional period for payment. If the fee remains unpaid within this timeframe, the case will be dismissed.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
