Jus Mundi's 2025 Arbitration Year in Review (AYIR) is a report produced by Daily Jus, Jus Mundi's editorial arm, led by Managing Editor Giulia Bartoletti with a team of regional assistant editors. It covers over 40 jurisdictions across six regions: Africa (Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda), Asia-Pacific (Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore), Latin America and Brazil (Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru), Europe (Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom), MENA and Turkiye (Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkiye, UAE), and North America (Canada, New York, Texas). Each jurisdiction chapter is written by local practitioners, pairing senior counsel with younger contributors.
Global picture
The report frames 2025 as a landmark year for legislative reform. England and Wales brought the Arbitration Act 2025 into force in August, codifying arbitrator disclosure duties, setting default rules for the law governing arbitration agreements, and letting tribunals issue summary awards. France advanced its Code de l'Arbitrage, a 146-article project unifying domestic and international arbitration and strengthening confidentiality protections. China passed its most significant Arbitration Law overhaul in three decades. Saudi Arabia modernized its framework with stronger enforcement mechanisms. India's own reform, the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, remains pending rather than passed.
Enforcement stayed contested. Spain continues resisting enforcement of intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty awards even as foreign courts enforce them. The Netherlands emerged as an active enforcement forum, with courts taking varying approaches to sovereign immunity and asset attachment in cases involving Russia and other states.
Institutionally, Sweden's SCC set up a new SCC Council and launched the Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum, administering 204 new cases in 2024. Australia's ACICA marked its 40th anniversary at Australian Arbitration Week, drawing 300-plus delegates from 18 countries.
𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘳: 𝘈𝘐 (𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦), 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘴 (𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦).
India chapter (Vasanth Rajasekaran and Harshvardhan Korada, Trinity Chambers)
Opens by tracing a decade of Supreme Court efforts toward international alignment: limiting judicial intervention at referral to a prima facie check (𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘺𝘢 𝘋𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘢, 𝘚𝘉𝘐 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘷. 𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨), keeping stamping objections outside a referral court's scope (𝘐𝘯 𝘙𝘦: 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺), treating party autonomy as foundational (𝘗𝘈𝘚𝘓 𝘞𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴), and using the group of companies doctrine to bind related non-signatories (𝘊𝘰𝘹 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴).
2025 itself is framed as judicial consolidation rather than legislative change:
Gayatri Balasamy: 4:1 split recognizing a narrow power to modify awards, limited to severable, self-contained defects. The dissent called any modification appellate review in disguise. Lancor Holdings: An award delayed nearly four years, still unable to resolve the dispute, was set aside; the Court used Article 142 to resolve the dispute itself. Sri Lakshmi Hotel: Upheld a 24% interest award as a risk-priced commercial bargain, not grounds for an unconscionability challenge. Alchemist Hospitals: Reaffirmed what counts as a valid Section 7 arbitration agreement; a mere amicable-settlement clause with civil court fallback doesn't qualify. Glencore: Confirmed a binding agreement can arise from correspondence and conduct alone under Section 7(4). Kamal Gupta: Treated Section 42A confidentiality as close to non-derogable, barring an interested non-signatory even as observer. Ajay Madhusudan: Took a more permissive view of non-signatory involvement at referral stage. Geojit Financial Services: A Section 33 clarification application resets the Section 34 limitation clock. MMTC Ltd.: Fraud/collusion allegations can't reopen enforcement at execution stage absent a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
Closing take: India is favoring balanced oversight over heavy intervention. Two tensions remain open: the line between permissible modification and impermissible rewriting under Balasamy, and confidentiality-versus-transparency between Kamal and Madhusudan.
𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒕: 𝑱𝒖𝒔 𝑴𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒊, 2025 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘, 𝑫𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝑱𝒖𝒔 𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝑮𝒊𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂 𝑩𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊. 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒃𝒚 𝑽𝒂𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒉 𝑹𝒂𝒋𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝑲𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒂, 𝑻𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔.