Dispute resolution

From 1 July 2025, the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2019 Hague Convention) comes into force between the UK, the EU (except Denmark) and other states. It provides for recognition and enforcement of a judgment given by a court of a contracting state not designated in an "exclusive" choice of court agreement.

The most important benefit of the 2019 Hague Convention is that it will, although by no means universally, apply to a wide range of English civil and commercial court judgments. This is an improvement on the position under the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which only assists as regards recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from contractual disputes, and even then, only those governed by exclusive jurisdiction clauses. The 2019 Hague Convention will allow UK parties to more easily enforce many more judgments in contracting states, as well as to agree non-exclusive or asymmetric English jurisdiction clauses in contracts with parties from other contracting states. Qualifying English court judgments arising from those clauses should generally be enforceable in those states – including, importantly, in all EU member states (except Denmark). This will strengthen the ability of the English courts to deal with cross-border disputes.

Crucially, the application of the 2019 Hague Convention does not depend on when a relevant jurisdiction clause was entered into. It will apply to proceedings started after the 2019 Hague Convention comes into force for both the state in which a judgment originated and the state in which that judgment needs to be enforced.

You can read more about the implications of the 2019 Hague Convention here. For a reminder of the general existing position as regards jurisdiction clauses and enforcement of judgments post-Brexit, read this briefing.

The long-awaited Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025) was signed into law on 24 February 2025. Whilst the Arbitration Act 1996 remains the principal Act governing arbitration in this jurisdiction, the AA 2025 makes targeted amendments and brings welcome clarity to areas of uncertainty.

The AA 2025 sets a new default rule that the governing law of an arbitration clause is the law of the seat of the arbitration, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. The AA 2025 also codifies a new statutory duty regarding what arbitrators must disclose to the parties (any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality). It also clarifies the powers of courts to make orders in support of arbitration proceedings and to enforce the orders of emergency arbitrators. These reforms will make arbitration more predictable and user-friendly.

The AA 2025 also includes changes which will help make arbitration more time- and cost-efficient. It introduces a power for arbitral tribunals to summarily dispose of claims or defences that have no real prospect of success. This is similar to the strike out and summary judgment powers of the English courts and will make it easier to dispose of weak and vexatious claims and defences. The AA 2025 also streamlines challenges to arbitral awards on the grounds that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction, by limiting the arguments and evidence that can be put forward.

The new provisions of the AA 2025 will apply to all arbitration agreements, whenever they were made (although not where arbitration or court proceedings have already been commenced). The reforms will enter into force on a date yet to be determined, although the Government has indicated that this will be done via regulations shortly. The reforms will ensure that arbitration remains an attractive option for dispute resolution in this jurisdiction.

For more, read our briefing and get in touch if you would like to discuss how these reforms affect your existing arbitration agreements, or if you would like to learn more.

Last November, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published its updated and finalised guidance on internal investigations. Aimed primarily at in-house solicitors, but also relevant to external lawyers conducting investigations on businesses' behalf, its purpose is to help solicitors understand and manage regulatory risks and issues when conducting internal investigations. 

The guidance highlights the importance of those investigating being independent and being seen to be independent. For example, investigators should have no prior knowledge of or involvement in the underlying issue(s), and, in an ideal world, should erect information barriers to stop any leaks and maintain confidentiality. Realistically, this will prove difficult for any but the largest in-house teams to accommodate.

In-house counsel need to be consistently mindful of the potential risk of conflicts, particularly if the subject of their investigation is an individual at the executive or board level. The inevitable influence such individuals exert in the business heightens the risk that an investigation will lack, or will be seen to lack, independence and impartiality. In-house counsel should therefore have systems in place to be able to demonstrate that they can act with independence. If they are unable to guard against these perceptions of bias, the SRA suggests that an external investigator is appointed to lead an investigation. This is particularly advisable if there is a risk of reputational damage for the business. However, the guidance warns against the appointment of investigators connected to the underlying events or who may have “pre-conceived views on the likely outcome” of the investigation; this applies equally to external investigators.

The SRA recognises that there is no “one size fits all” approach to investigations and that allegations of misconduct or impropriety vary in severity and duration. In-house lawyers should use their best judgement to decide when a formal investigation is warranted and to tailor their investigations accordingly. The guidance confirms the need for the terms of reference to provide a clear roadmap as to the scope and timeline of an investigation.

All individuals involved in the investigation (e.g. any witnesses and the subject of the investigation) should be provided with appropriate support throughout the process. In-house counsel will need to be alive to the emotional and psychological effects of an investigation and should be particularly aware of any “red flags” which indicate that an individual is at risk. They should also ensure that any adjustments are made to the investigation to protect the well-being of these individuals. This will require in-house counsel to have established systems in place (e.g. by liaising with their HR teams) well in advance of any investigation.