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

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll