KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 5 (May 2026)
July 5, 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, JunHe LLP, ITA Reporter for China
The Guangzhou Intermediate Court refused to set aside an arbitral award when a party initiated arbitration as a Mainland Chinese citizen and did not disclose its identity as a Hong Kong citizen.
Arthur Dong, JunHe LLP, ITA Reporter for China
The Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court recognized and enforced a foreign arbitral award rendered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), dismissing all objections raised by the Respondent. The Court found the arbitration agreement valid and the arbitral notice properly served under the SIAC Rules. Notably, the Court also took into account the dismissal of the Respondent’s parallel application to set aside the award by the Singapore High Court during its proceedings.
Arthur Dong, JunHe LLP, ITA Reporter for China
The Dalian Intermediate People’s Court recognized and enforced a Singapore-seated SIAC award ordering the respondents to take necessary steps to cancel a PRC registered trademark or, at the claimant’s request, transfer the trademark to the claimant. The Court held that such relief, issued as a contractual remedy between the parties, did not violate the public policy of mainland China.
Arthur Dong, JunHe LLP, ITA Reporter for China
A party requested Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (“Shenzhen Court”) to suspend the recognition and enforcement proceedings on the grounds that an annulment action was pending before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Shenzhen Court adopted a cautious approach to this application. Specifically, after conducting a comprehensive assessment, Shenzhen Court found, among other things, no indication that the award had been set aside or its enforcement suspended by the court of the seat. Therefore, Shenzhen Court refused to suspend the proceedings and ultimately recognized and enforced the award.
Lithuania: M. Z. v. S. S. Z. and T. T., Supreme Court of Lithuania, e3K-3-45-943/2025, 09 April 2025
Vytautas Vaicekauskas, Motieka & Audzevičius, ITA Reporter for Lithuania
In April 2025, the Supreme Court of Lithuania confirmed that a non-party to arbitration has no right to challenge an arbitral award before the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, unless the award directly affects the rights or obligations of that non-party.
Fernando Cantuarias Salaverry, Law School of Universidad del Pacìfico, ITA Reporter for Peru
The Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima decided not to set aside an award because the procedural rules agreed by the parties were not violated.
Fernando Cantuarias Salaverry, Law School of Universidad del Pacìfico, ITA Reporter for Peru
The Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima decides to recognize an award made in France against the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima.
South Korea: AAA Co., Ltd. v. BBB Co., Ltd., Supreme Court of Korea, 2024Ma5904, 27 June 2024
Byung-Woo Im, Kim & Chang, and Kay-Jannes Wegner, Mayer Brown, ITA Reporters for South Korea
In a case concerning the recognition and enforcement of an ICC arbitration award, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision which held, among others, that the English-language arbitration clause which provided for Seoul as the “site for such arbitration proceeding” was an agreement on the seat of the arbitration, as opposed to the physical venue of the hearing and that holding proceedings in Hong Kong did not violate the parties’ arbitration agreement.
South Korea: AAA Co., Ltd. v. BBB LLC, Supreme Court of Korea, 2024Da243172, 23 January 2025
Byung-Woo Im, Kim & Chang, and Kay-Jannes Wegner, Mayer Brown, ITA Reporters for South Korea
The Supreme Court overturned a Seoul High Court decision, upholding an arbitration agreement which referred to a non-existent arbitral institution and contained ambiguous language.
Natalia Petrik, Westerberg & Partners, ITA Reporter for Sweden
In its judgment of 27 June 2025 in case T 11446-23, the Svea Court of Appeal dismissed an action brought by Public Joint Stock Company Mobile Telesystems (MTS) seeking to have an arbitral award rendered under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules declared invalid or, alternatively, set aside. The Court held that neither the award nor the manner in which it was rendered was manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Swedish legal order (ordre public) under Section 33 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (LSF), and that none of the alleged excesses of mandate or procedural irregularities under Section 34 LSF had occurred or, in any event, had affected the outcome of the arbitration.
The judgment reiterates the Swedish courts’ restrictive approach to the scope of ordre public. The judgment also applies the requirement “impact on the outcome of the case” in the context of excess of mandate and the criteria “occurred without fault of party” in the context of procedural errors committed by the tribunal.
Elliot Friedman, Adam Weir and Christian Vandergeest, Freshfields, ITA Reporters for the United States of America
This decision concerns two actions brought in the United States by Ukrainian companies to enforce arbitral awards issued against the Russian Federation (“Russia”). In a consolidated appeal of both actions, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) affirmed the lower court’s findings of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). In doing so, the D.C. Circuit rejected Russia’s argument that the awards were political rather than commercial in nature because the underlying disputes arose from actions taken by Russia in its annexation of Crimea. The D.C. Circuit also affirmed the lower court’s findings of personal jurisdiction over Russia, upholding a longstanding line of jurisprudence according to which foreign states are not entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections requiring minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
July 1, 2026
