Views
Investment Awards vs Sovereign Immunity: Navigating the Enforcement Maze
By Cara North, Counsel, Ashurst
The intersection of foreign State immunity and the enforcement of international arbitral awards has been a hotly contested issues in recent years. First the question was whether a State has waived immunity from court processes concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by ratifying the 1965 Convention of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) – to which the answer has been yes in Australia and the England and Wales (among other jurisdictions). More recently, the question has been whether a State’s ratification of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) constitutes an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity, to which the High Court of Australia most recently held no.
In CCDM Holdings, LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, of itself, waive foreign State immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The decision aligns Australia with the current position in the United States, Canada, and England and Wales, reinforcing an emerging common law consensus in that regard.
Courtroom Attendance as a Forum Conveniens Factor in Hamilton v Barrow
This post is written by Timon Milan Solár, Doctoral researcher, Faculty of Law, Trnava University, Slovakia.
In October 2025, the High Court of England and Wales (King’s Bench Division) handed down its judgment in Hamilton v Barrow [2025] EWHC 2593 (KB). The case concerned a failed unregulated investment scheme that collapsed in 2017, leaving investors without the possibility of recovering their investments, which ranged from £2,930 to £410,969. At first glance, the decision discusses important procedural questions, including abuse of process and champerty. However, on closer inspection, it also raises an interesting issue of English private international law that has gone overlooked. Can courtroom attendance be a factor in the forum conveniens test?
Greenpeace Anti-SLAPP Suit Blocked by International Antisuit Injunction
This post was written by Hannah Buxbaum, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law. The post is cross-posted from the Transnational Litigation Blog with kind permission.
In 2019, Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation, in North Dakota state court. Last year, Greenpeace responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Dutch court. In the latest twist in this lengthy dispute, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued an antisuit injunction last week blocking (partially) that anti-SLAPP suit.
The injunction is unusual in two respects. First, it does not actually bar Greenpeace from pursuing the Dutch action; rather, it purports to limit the issues that Greenpeace can raise in that litigation. Second, it was entered after judgment had already been reached in the North Dakota lawsuit. Read more
News
AAPrIL June Seminar (Online): “A Long-Awaited Reform: Papua New Guinea’s New Arbitration Law A conversation with Michael Henao”
News from the Australasian Associate of Private International Law:
We are pleased to share the updated flyer for our forthcoming event, A Long-Awaited Reform: Papua New Guinea’s New Arbitration Law — A Conversation with Michael Henao, taking place on 9 June. We are delighted to confirm that Cara North will be joining Michael Henao for what promises to be a timely and engaging discussion on this significant development in the region’s arbitration landscape.
This is an excellent opportunity to hear first-hand insights into Papua New Guinea’s new arbitration framework from a highly respected practitioner. We very much look forward to welcoming you on the day and encourage you to circulate the attached flyer among interested colleagues. Further details can be found in the flyer enclosed:
Workshop on Private International Law, Sustainability and Fashion
As part of the DFG- and AHRC-funded Fashion’s PLACE project, there will be a workshop on Private International Law, Sustainability and Fashion at the Geneva Graduate Institute on 18 June 2026 (11:00–13:00 CEST), just prior to the EAPIL conference. The event will bring together perspectives from law, sustainability and the fashion industry, with short presentations and space for discussion. If you are in Geneva and interested in the intersection of private international law, circular economy and fashion, consider coming. No sign-up necessary.
Conference: European Principles of Transnational Litigation and Their Reception Abroad (Hamburg, 8–10 Oct 2026)
On 8–10 October 2026, Julian Rapp and Wolfgang Wurmnest will be hosting a conference on European Principles of Transnational Litigation and Their Reception Abroad at the University of Hamburg.
The aim of the conference is described as follows:
As cross-border disputes grow increasingly common in today’s globalized world, reflection on key European procedural principles – and their influence beyond Europe – deserves closer examination. This conference examines how European procedural rules, particularly those shaped by the Court of Justice of the European Union, have evolved into general principles of transnational litigation. It will discuss classic jurisdictional rules (contract and tort jurisdiction, jurisdiction agreements, and lis pendens), the protection of weaker parties, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments – all reflecting the practical challenges that litigants and courts face in cross-border litigation.