On Day 5 of London International Disputes Week (LIDW25), leading global voices in arbitration convened at Quadrant House, London, to discuss “Judicial perspectives, institutional practice, and practitioner realities: evolving standards in international arbitration.”
The distinguished panel features
- Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court of India
- Poonam Melwani KC, Head of Quadrant Chambers
- Prashanto Chandra Sen SA, Associate Member, Quadrant Chambers
- Christopher Lau, Senior Counsel & Chartered Arbitrator, 3 Verulam Buildings
- Kevin Nash, Director General, LCIA
- Vivekanananda Neelakantan, Registrar, SIAC
-
Sherina Petit, Partner, Head of International Arbitration & India Practice, Stewarts
The event opens with Justice Vikram Nath delivering the keynote address. He warmly welcomes everyone and sets the tone for the proceedings.
Justice Nath highlights India’s evolving arbitration model as a source of global relevance.
He notes that, “As judiciaries across the globe recalibrate their engagement with international arbitration, discussion on such multifaceted topic gives us scope to discuss viewpoints of all the stakeholders in arbitration—parties, the arbitrators, the institutions and the courts.”
Justice Nath goes on to offer a uniquely Indian perspective, while underlining its increasing global resonance:
“As we reflect on the evolving standards across jurisdiction, I would like to offer perspective that is uniquely Indian but increasingly global in its relevance.”
He traces India’s arbitration trajectory as both evolutionary and revolutionary—driven not just by legislation, but by judicial will:
“India’s arbitration landscape—whether evolution or revolution—is shaped not only by legislation but by outreach to emulate, particularly in regions where courts continue to fail. Revolution shaped not only by the legislation, but by the judiciary’s conscious effort to transform India into credible, effective and respected arbitration jurisdiction.”
He asserts that, “What is emerging in India today is a model of judicial discipline, institutional empowerment, and doctrinal clarity that I believe other jurisdictions, especially those in transition or reform, may draw upon.”
“India is directed by the reformed, peopleistic and international arbitration deviation from glance at all Model Law. By this unified approach and forced interpretive challenges also provides evidently for developing poor individual schools across jurisdictional boundaries, as countries consider domesticating arbitration law, creative hybrid models.”, He notes
“India’s courts have historically been viewed with scepticism when it came to arbitration, known for frequent interference and expansive readings of ‘public policy.’ However, the last decade has seen a marked departure from this trend,” states Justice Nath.
He references transformative Supreme Court decisions — Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126, Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760, and Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 359, — as key indicators of this judicial evolution, emphasising the growing commitment to finality and minimal intervention.
Justice Nath remarks:
“One of India’s most significant contributions to global arbitration jurisprudence lies in its robust defence of party autonomy.”
He cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209 as a defining moment:
“Despite the absence of express statutory recognition of emergency arbitrators in Indian law, the Supreme Court held that once parties had agreed to the SIAC Rules which permit emergency arbitration the court was bound to honour that framework.”
Underlining the broader global implications of this approach, he remarks:
“This judgment should resonate globally. It affirms that party choice is not just procedural it is binding, and institutions or jurisdictions that sidestep that choice risk undermining the very foundation of arbitration.”
He also added that:
“Countries seeking to strengthen trust in their arbitration regimes may take note: judicial fidelity to contractual intent can foster certainty and investor confidence more effectively than rigid formalism.”
On the question as to where India has now landed and whether it’s in the right place about balancing arbitral autonomy and judicial oversight, Prashanto responds:
“No, I think it’s always a work in progress. There has to be fine-tuning always going on.”
He draws a comparative lens with the UK:
“As far as… and it was in comparison with UK, which we were looking at also, which has a very hands-off, strict hands-off approach. But if you look at it, both are rooted in a tradition where the judiciary or the courts which are going to look at it — look at it from the point of view as agents of the state to enforce fence in arbitral proceedings at some level while maintaining party autonomy.”
Commenting on India’s evolving jurisprudence, he notes:
If you look at the Indian scenario, it has been a substitutist group. We started with what is called the Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 judgment in 1940, which was dealing with enforcement of awards. Which took a very narrow view of public policy, much narrower than any other. Saying that it’s only on those grounds like if there is a shocking of judicial conscience or something against the interests of India — that kind of a ground.
He explains the arc of judicial interpretation over the years:
Then we had the widening of challenge under public policy, which was ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 and other judgments like that. Now, there is a legislative amendment which has taken place which has clarified the scope of interference of courts — and it has come back to the Renu Sagar test, both for international and domestic awards.
Highlighting a critical legislative shift, he adds:
They have pointed out in Renu Sagar that the ‘interests of India’ has been taken out and therefore, public policy cannot mean re-looking at the award. Judiciary has supported that interpretation and has taken it forward.
Drawing parallels with developments in England, he remarks:
Interestingly, it’s work in progress in England too. There is of course the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Developments Ltd., [2023] EWHC 2638 judgment, which was a very egregious case of fraud. I think Justice Nath spoke about it in another session — six billion award and then eleven billion coming down to it.”
He concludes with a note of comparative balance, that both in UK and India are on the same page as far as the philosophy of interference is concerned. But I think there are scopes for changes which take place depending on the cases coming up.
Kevin Nash, opens on a warm note, saying, “I think what is always appropriate to do is to welcome everyone to London”.
He uses the occasion to announce a significant development:
“And maybe also a very good time to announce LCIA’s return to India. Of course, we have Sharina on our board of directors, so we’re very much talking about what LCIA can do in India.”
He adds, “One of our counsel, also from India. And I’ve been going to India for a long time.”
Nash then reflects on a series of high-profile emergency arbitration cases that have brought global attention to the process:
“In terms of war stories, I’m very proud of the quartet, or quintet—depending on how you look at it—of emergency arbitration decisions that have really captured the attention of the globe. So we started in HSBC, then we had Raffles Design, and then finally, Amazon–Future Retail, where, of course, we were charged with appointing the arbitrator.”
Noting its broader impact, he says:
“It was one of the only times that my parents have ever seen something to do with what my job is, because it was covered by CNN North America, and I think has really helped popularise emergency arbitration in North America.”
He adds, “In Singapore, London, emergency arbitration is very well known. So that was a huge seminal decision. We talked about it in the central working group too, and I think it looked really good for India.”
On India’s evolving legislative landscape, Nash remarks:
“I’m so happy to see giving statutory footing to emergency arbitrators and the proposed amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because I’ve seen how that can work. We saw it in Singapore.”
Elaborating further, he recalls, in Singapore, SIAC introduced the emergency arbitrator provisions in 2010.
He reflects on personal sacrifices made in the line of duty:
“I spent 14 Chinese New Years in Singapore. I don’t think I ever was properly able to celebrate, because on the eve of Chinese New Years, always an application for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator.”
On the strategic value of emergency arbitration, Nash observes:
“It really pushes the other side and all of a sudden they’re very much involved in an arbitration.”
He adds a practical insight:
“One interesting component that we don’t talk about enough in relation to emergency arbitration is the increased settlements after an emergency arbitration. I think this is fundamentally important.”
Having transitioned to LCIA after a long tenure at SIAC, Nash reflects on the perceived distinction between institutional styles:
“You have institutions like SIAC and ICC that are more structured administration… it’s thought that LCIA and HKIAC are more light touch.”
But Nash is quick to qualify that description:
“I went around the LCIA offices banning the use of the word ‘light touch’ because it’s more—it’s flexible administration.”
He explains that the flexibility doesn’t compromise scrutiny:
“We’re reading the awards just like they’re being read at SIAC or LCIA… and there’s a lot that goes into deciding whether or not an arbitrator is up to the task.”
Crucially, he questions how newer institutions can meaningfully assess arbitrator competence without deep institutional exposure:
“If you were not reading the award, I don’t know if you would really decide. I wonder how institutions that are just looking from a distance can decide whether or not this was run properly.”
Nash also offers a cultural perspective on arbitrator appointments, emphasising how critical it is to account for local business customs. He explains, I always use the example of the business culture in Singapore and Malaysia of oral variations in a contract and if you appointed someone that was not fluent or au fait in that culture of doing business—if you appointed an English, say that had never been down to the peninsula—that arbitrator may think that the witness is dishonest and this could actually turn the case.
For Nash, ideal arbitrators are those who are:
- Efficient
- Fair
- Procedurally sound
- Able to interface effectively with the institution
He emphasizes the subtle power of institutional scrutiny:
“The best form of scrutiny is when you’re in a conversation with the arbitrator… all of the rules on scrutiny use that very important language—they draw the tribunal’s attention to points of substance.”
Vivekanananda Neelakantan addresses the increasing trend of awards being challenged and how this has influenced legislative and procedural thinking in arbitration:
“And again, the number of cases where awards have been challenged for us has increased over the years.”
He points to recent developments aimed at curbing unmeritorious challenges and incentivising procedural fairness:
“And in recent particular, there are instances where there’s possibilities—and one of the other amendments that is now is—when there’s a successful challenge, so you don’t just walk away with what’s been set aside, but you could also potentially recover costs that you would spend in the arbitration.”
Turning to practice before the courts, he refers to Section 68 and notes:
“When it’s to the court, I presume you have Section 68. Do you have to get— as of right, if you’re alleging or processing—you can file a challenge, right?”
Responding to the question on how Singapore’s judiciary ensures arbitration remains independent whilst maintaining oversight, Vivekanananda remarks, “I think one point that should be said is that while the Singapore courts have long had this track record of imposing arbitration agreements and arbitration awards rather seriously, they have not hesitated to step in and set aside awards when necessary — and where that being clear causes failures.”
He further notes, “The number of cases where awards were challenged to Singapore courts have only increased over the years and that is presumably because there is a larger number of cases that are being arbitrated.”
He adds, in recent years particularly, there are instances where the Singapore courts have set aside awards where there is process failures.
Highlighting legislative developments, he states, “One of the other amendments that is now being considered in the Singapore Arbitration Act is — when there is a successful challenge to an award — then the court should have the power to reapportion the costs among the parties.” He explains, so you do not just walk away with the award being set aside, but you can also potentially recover costs that you would have spent in the arbitration.
Responding to the moderator’s prompt for a “war story,” Vivekanananda shares a compelling account that connected directly to the ongoing conversation on emergency arbitrator orders and their enforceability. He began, “I have one which actually connects to what Justice Nath just said in terms of the proposal for the enforcement of emergency arbitrate orders. This really begins from a very sad episode which is one of the biggest terror attacks that happened in India in November 2008 in Bombay.” He continued, “Ten years later there was an Australian production house that set out to make a movie on it.”
Describing the setup, he says, “There was an agreement between a party in the UAE and this Australian company to distribute the movie in all of the SAARC region, India and the rest of South Asia.” The dispute emerged just before the film’s release: The party from the UAE found out that they had struck a kind of secret deal with Netflix to release the movie on the Netflix platform.”
He explains, The distribution agreement between the parties provided for SIAC arbitration and the UAE party which was the intended and supposed distributor then applied for emergency interim relief and asked for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator at SIAC. The emergency arbitrator, after due consideration, “granted relief injuncting the production house from breaching the distribution agreement because he found that there was, on a primal facing basis, exclusivity of distribution and said he would not then hand over rights to the film to any other third party.”
However, Netflix couldn’t have been made party to the arbitration because it was not party to the arbitration agreement. As a result, the UAE distributor went to the Bombay High Court and requested the High Court to exercise its power under Section 9 to then grant interim relief in the same terms as the emergency arbitrator’s orders. Notably, this allowed Netflix to be arraigned in as a party to that litigation,” and the court “granted orders in the same terms as the UAE order.
Calling it a “classic example of how the emergency arbitrator processes work at SIAC in terms of its speed and the level of detail to which the decisions are made by emergency arbitrators,” he emphasises how the Indian courts have really been amongst the most progressive in allowing this manner of quote unquote enforcement through the Section 9 rule. He concludes by noting that this was possible only because courts were persuaded by the logic and the analysis and the reasoning of the emergency arbitrator in making orders of a similar kind under the Section 9 rule restriction. He added, “India is quite unique in this respect in terms of its experience with emergency arbitrator orders — and of course there have been many other such examples.
In response to the question on how SIAC approaches arbitrator appointments and whether it maintains a “little black book,” he notes that,
“appointing arbitrators is perhaps the most important step in the process one may say because that’s really the person or persons who are deciding your dispute.”
He stresses the importance of getting both procedural and substantive issues right, adding, “whether it’s procedural issues or substantive issues they’ve got to get it right. And more so on the former because process failures are what can lead to a challenge from the world.”
He explains that SIAC seeks individuals who are obviously familiar with international arbitration and the procedures and the rules of the institution. He also acknowledges that “we do have an internal list as well of rising arbitrators who are people who are younger in their journey on being an arbitrator. The selection process is also driven by the complexity and value of the case: “The complexity of the case and the value of the case is obviously a determining factor. You pick people of relative seniority to the complexity and value.”
Highlighting the importance of subject matter expertise:
“Is it a construction dispute? Is it a cryptocurrency dispute? Is it a shipping dispute? You pick people according to the expertise that is required for that particular case.” He adds that “nationality is a key consideration because when we are appointing sole arbitrators and presiding arbitrators you always want to appoint someone of a nationality that is neutral to that arbitration.”
Conclusively, the session offers a deep dive into the evolving landscape of international arbitration, with a strong focus on emerging trends, institutional practices, and legislative reforms. Discussions spanned critical themes such as procedural discipline, emergency arbitration, cost recovery, and the significance of effective arbitrator appointments.
