header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Legal News , Arbitration , ADR , International , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Malaysia’s arbitration overhaul

235675
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal

Coming into force on 1 January 2026, the new suite unifies six frameworks—arbitration, Islamic arbitration, mediation, sports, adjudication, and domain name disputes.

The 2026 rules embed transparency by mandating disclosure of third-party funders, formalise the new AIAC Court of Arbitration, and expand eligibility for fast-track proceedings to disputes under US$3m. They also introduce mandatory technical reviews of draft awards and encourage diversity in arbitrator appointments.

Choi notes that these changes reflect Malaysia’s bid to modernise its dispute resolution landscape, aligning it with global arbitral practices and boosting investor confidence through procedural clarity, speed, and accountability.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll