Unicredit v RusChemAlliance and the Arbitration Bill

The Supreme Court’s decision in Unicredit v RusChemAlliance reconfirmed that the governing law of a contract will typically apply to its arbitration agreement, even if the arbitration is seated in another legal jurisdiction. So far, so clear. But what would the outcome have been had the Arbitration Bill, currently before Parliament, been in force?

In an article for the New Law Journl, Valya Georgieva, senior associate in the commercial dispute resolution team, and Ravi Aswani of 36 Stone consider the Supreme Court’s reasoning, why the outcome might have differed had the bill been in force, and what this means for practitioners navigating international arbitration disputes.

This insightful analysis focuses on the following:

• the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision in Unicredit, including its emphasis on the primacy of the arbitration agreement and application/clarification of the precedent set by Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38;
• the importance placed under English law of giving effect to the parties’ choice of law; 
• the thinking behind the Arbitration Bill and the significant impact it is likely to have on disputes over the law of the arbitration agreement; and
• any future role of the English courts in supporting arbitration seated elsewhere, in particular if the Arbitration Bill (which has now passed its third reading in the House of Lords) is enacted in its current form.

For a more detailed exploration of these issues, click here. For non-subscribers, complete the relevant fields for access.