A World Tour of In-House Counsel – Jurisdictional Perspectives on International Arbitration

Iain Clark attended London International Disputes Week 2025, follow his thought leadership series where he provides insight to key sessions throughout the week, key takeaways and what they mean for dispute resolution practitioners in Scotland. 

Moderated by Ben Holland, a panel of senior in-house counsel from global companies shared valuable, region-specific insights into the realities of international arbitration today, covering key themes: enforcement, institutional trust, seat selection, and adapting to diverse legal systems.

Alan Henderson underscored a strong preference for arbitration over litigation in the UAE, citing procedural unpredictability and limited specialist expertise in local courts. Following the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA under Dubai Decree 34, Multiplex now offshores its arbitrations to jurisdictions offering greater neutrality and enforcement reliability.

Suber Akther noted that UK domestic disputes often use litigation due to efficient courts and the ability to join multiple parties. For cross-border cases, arbitration is preferred, typically seated in London—to mitigate jurisdictional bias. He noted the continued role of adjudication in UK construction and arbitration-friendly stance of English courts.

Borja García Ruiz pointed to Madrid’s growth as a trusted and cost-effective arbitration hub, particularly for Latin America-related disputes as an alternative to more expensive seats like London.

Dr. SANJEEV GEMAWAT shared a candid view of court inefficiencies across Asia, which often leave arbitration as the only workable option for cross-border matters. While UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention are widely adopted, enforcement and institutional quality remain uneven across jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways for Businesses:

Seat Selection Matters: The seat of arbitration determines procedural rules and court involvement. Opt for arbitration-friendly jurisdictions like London, Singapore or established regional centres.

Enforcement : Consider early whether counterparties have enforceable assets in jurisdictions where awards will be respected.

Institutional Credibility: Global bodies like ICC, LCIA, and SIAC offer consistency. Local institutions vary in reliability.

Representation Strategy Is Key: Combine international and local counsel for both strategic and cultural insight. Arbitrator selection significantly shapes outcomes.

Courts Can Support or Undermine Arbitration: Choose jurisdictions with a track record of enforcing awards and granting interim relief.

Efficiency Requires Active Oversight: While arbitration is often quicker than litigation, it must be proactively managed to control time and cost.

Conclusion:

International arbitration continues to be the preferred mechanism for complex, cross-border disputes—but success depends on getting the fundamentals right from the start. At Gilson Gray LLP, we help businesses navigate these decisions early before the dispute arises.

To discuss any of the points raised further, please contact him below or a member of our Litigation team here.

The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only.  They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice.  Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.