Views
A New Precedent in Contract Conflicts: Decoding the Tyson v. GIC Ruling on Hierarchy Clauses
By Ryan Joseph, final-year BBA LLB (Hons) student, Jindal Global Law School, India.
Introduction
The recent decision of the UK High Court (“Court”) in Tyson International Company Limited (“Tyson”) v. General Insurance Corporation of India (“GIC”) sets a critical precedent for cases that lie at the intersection of arbitration, contractual hierarchy, and judicial intervention through anti-suit injunctions. The principal issue in the case revolved around the harmonious application of two conflicting dispute resolution clauses contained in two separate agreements pertaining to the same transaction. While one provided for dispute settlement through arbitration seated in New York, the other was an exclusive jurisdiction clause that provided for dispute settlement by England and Wales courts. To resolve this apparent conflict between the two clauses, the Court relied on a confusion clause (also known as a hierarchy clause) in the parties’ agreement to rule that the exclusive jurisdiction clause, in favour of England and Wales courts, prevails over the arbitration clause. Based on this conclusion, the Court issued an anti-suit injunction against GIC from arbitrating the dispute in New York. Read more
Australian Federal Court Backs India on Sovereign Immunity: Another Twist in the Devas v. India Saga
by Shantanu Kanade, Assistant Professor, Dispute Resolution, Jindal Global Law School, India
The Federal Court of Australia (“Federal Court”), in its recent judgement in the Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC[1] (“Judgement”), held that the Republic of India (“India”) was entitled to jurisdictional immunity from Australian Courts in proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards dealing with disputes arising from ‘non-commercial’ legal relationships. The Court’s judgment was rendered with respect to an appeal filed by India against an interlocutory judgement of a primary judge of the same court, rejecting India’s sovereign immunity claim.
Background of the Dispute
Three Mauritian entities of the Devas group (“Original Applicants”) had commenced arbitration proceedings in 2012 under the 1998 India-Mauritius BIT, impugning India’s actions with respect to an agreement for leasing of space spectrum capacity entered between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (an Indian company in which the Original Applicants held shares) and Antrix Corporation Limited (an Indian state-owned entity). In 2011, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to annul the said agreement, citing an increased demand for allocation of spectrum towards meeting various military and public utility needs (“Annulment”). The arbitration proceedings that followed culminated in a jurisdiction and merits award in 2016[2] and a quantum award in 2020 (“Quantum Award”)[3]. The Original Applicants have since sought to enforce the Quantum Award against India in different jurisdictions, discussed here.[4]
Finder on the Supreme People’s Court’s Notice on Foreign State Immunity Procedures
The news about the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issuing the Notice on Procedural Matters Related to Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity has been previously reported on this blog.
Following this significant development, Professor Susan Finder, a distinguished Scholar in Residence at Peking University School of Transnational Law, has kindly shared her insights on the matter. Her post was originally published on the Supreme People’s Court Monitor. Given its valuable contribution, we decided to repost it here.
Our sincerest thanks to Professor Susan Finder for her thoughtful analysis and generosity in sharing her thoughts. Read more
News
Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with Tobias Lutzi on “Crossroads in Private International Law Seminar on the Reform of EU Private International Law” at the University of Aberdeen
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) titled ‘Between Ambition and Realism – What to Expect from the Upcoming Reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation?’:
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance invites you to attend the next seminar in our Crossroads in Private International Law seminar series. You can find the link to register at the bottom of this page.
Prof Tobias Lutzi (Junior Professor for Private Law at Augsburg University) will give a seminar on the reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation. Prof Lutzi has kindly provided the following abstract:
Last year, the EU Commission formally kicked off the process of reforming two key instruments of EU Private International Law, identifying potential areas for reform and setting out some overarching policy goals. In 2026, the Commission will face the more difficult decision of which of those areas to actually focus on. This talk will discuss the respective merits of those areas of reform, highlighting the tension between ambition and realism that will shape the Commission’s work.
We are looking forward to welcoming you online or on campus!
Additional information and the link to register can be found here.
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/4
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The fourth and last issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2025 has just been released. It contains four articles, eight case notes, and six book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions). Read more
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: an(other) recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
An Australian, Hannon, wants to book a Southern African safari with his partner, Murti, as a surprise birthday gift. He sees one he likes on an Australian travel website. Hannon fills in the online form.
It turns out that the website is just the agent for a South African company, Drifters Adventours. Drifters emailed Hannon the price and payment details. Attached to the email is a brochure. The brochure says, “Drifters do not accept responsibility for any loss, injury, damage, accident, fatality, delay or inconvenience experienced while on tour.” The brochure also says, “You will be required to complete and sign a full indemnity prior to your tour departure.” Read more