header-logo header-logo

13 February 2026
Issue: 8149 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 13 February 2026

Arbitration

The Republic of India v CC Devas (Mauritius) Ltd (in administration) and other companies [2026] EWHC 156 (Comm)

The Commercial Court determined four threshold issues concerning an application under s 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 brought by the Republic of India against three Mauritian companies. The application sought determination of whether a tribunal seated in England must apply Mauritian law to determine who has authority to instruct lawyers in an arbitration. The court held that: (1) consent to a s 45 application by corporate parties is not limited to representatives recognised by the arbitral tribunal; (2) a s 45 application is not an impermissible challenge to a tribunal’s procedural order; (3) s 45 is not limited to prospective questions of law but can address questions already decided by a tribunal; and (4) s 45 is not ousted merely because the substantive law is international law, as the law of the seat governs procedural matters. The court ruled it had jurisdiction to determine the question of law raised, though made

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll