Views
Anti-Arbitration Injunction in Foreign-Seated Arbitrations: The Delhi High Court’s Controversial Intervention in Engineering Projects (India) Limited v. MSA Global LLC (Oman)
This post is posted on behalf of Arnav Sharma, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, India
Introduction
On 25th July 2025, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in Engineering Projects (India) Limited v. MSA Global LLC (Oman) in CS (OS) 243 of 2025[1] that has stirred considerable discourse in international arbitration circles. The fundamental question at issue in the instant case was whether an Indian Court can grant an anti-arbitration injunction to stay proceedings in a foreign-seated arbitration on grounds of the proceedings turning oppressive and vexatious due to procedural impropriety, notwithstanding internationally well-settled principles of minimal judicial intervention, party autonomy, and lex arbitri that govern international commercial arbitration? The Delhi High Court answered in the affirmative, holding that Indian civil courts possess inherent power under Section 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to intervene under exceptional circumstances where the arbitral process itself becomes a vehicle of abuse.
Cross-Border Personal Data Transfers: The Remaining Issues Following the Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision
Written by Dr Priskila Pratita Penasthika, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia
INTRODUCTION
The Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law, Law Number 27 of 2022 (Indonesian PDP Law), came into effect on 17 October 2022. Before its enactment, data protection rules in Indonesia were fragmented across different sector-specific laws and regulations. The Indonesian PDP Law aims to unify these laws and regulations, providing greater clarity and ensuring consistent personal data protection across all sectors in the country. The Indonesian PDP Law sets out normative provisions on personal data protection; however, detailed, practical rules have yet to be specified in the implementing regulations. As of now, the drafting of these implementing regulations is still underway. Read more
HUK-COBURG II: A Case on Mandatory Overriding Law or Jurisdiction?
By Ross Pey, Western University, Canada
1. Introduction
In Case C-86/23 E.N.I. and Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG II (‘HUK-COBURG II’), the principal issue that arose was whether a Bulgarian compensation provision may be interpreted as having mandatory effect. In suggesting that it does not, the Court required the facts to have sufficiently close links with the forum. (Hereinafter the ‘sufficient connexion test’) Ostensibly, a freestanding sufficient connexion test could be viewed as a disguised jurisdictional control of the forum rather than part of a mandatory law analysis. In doing so, parallels to renvoi and forum non conveniens are drawn. Read more
News
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2026/1
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The first issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2026 has just come off the press and is available online. It contains three articles, nine case notes, and eight book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).
Read more
Foreign Judgment Enforcement: Zimbabwean High Court holds that a Confirmed Mareva Injunction is a Final Judgment
In the Zimbabwe High Court decision of Ser and Another v Yong and Another (92 of 2026; HC/SUM 1957/2025) [2026] ZWHHC 137 (8 April 2026), the applicant obtained a freezing (Mareva) injunction from a foreign court in Singapore against assets linked to the respondents and then sought to have that order registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. The respondents resisted enforcement, arguing that the order should not be recognised because it was interlocutory in nature and because a relevant foreign defendant had not been joined to the original proceedings. The dispute therefore arose in the context of an attempt to extend the effect of a foreign asset-preservation order into Zimbabwe against parties and assets within its jurisdiction.
Virtual Workshop (in German) on May 5, 2026: Thomas Pfeiffer on „Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht“
On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg) will speak, in German, about the topic
“Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht”
In Deutschland dürfte zum juristischen Allgemeinwissen zählen, dass anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare in den USA (und manchen anderen Rechtsordnungen) zulässig und vielfach sogar üblich sind, in Deutschland hingegen früher generell als unzulässig galten und auch heute noch deutlichen rechtlichen Grenzen unterliegen. Im IPR wird meist angenommen, dass sich diese Grenzen auch international zwingend durchsetzen, soweit es um deutsche Anwälte geht. Die schon früher relevante Frage nach Differenzierungen im Einzelnen hat durch die spürbaren Lockerungen der maßgebenden sachrechtlichen Regeln in jüngerer Zeit nochmals an Bedeutung gewonnen.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.