A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law
In the eagerly awaited judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb  UKSC 38, the Supreme Court finally settled an important issue in the law of arbitration that has long divided the authorities and commentary: in the absence of a choice by the parties, where the law applicable to the main contract differs from that of the arbitral seat, it is the law of the seat that governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. Although decided by majority of only 3:2, the case represents, for all practical purposes, welcome clarity, authority, and – most importantly – certainty for the business community.
The key points arising in the Majority Opinion which are as follows:
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: