Belgravia Law September Newsletter

The High Court has confirmed that its discretion under CPR 3.1(7) extends to setting aside final judgments obtained by fraud, without requiring a defendant to commence fresh proceedings. The ruling in UK & EU Claim Lawyers LLC v Enterprise Rent-A-Car (UK) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2317 (Ch) highlights the court’s readiness to prioritise fairness over finality when dishonesty is at play, while also shedding light on vulnerabilities within online claims systems.

The dispute stemmed from a fly-tipping investigation after the claimant returned a hired van and left cardboard inside. Four separate claims followed, two of which were brought by the claimant personally and another by PUCC Ltd (“P”), which sought over £10,000 in compensation. In the online Civil National Business Centre (“CNBC”) system, P entered judgment based on an alleged admission of liability, despite no evidence that the defendant (Enterprise) had ever consented.

Enterprise applied to have two judgments set aside and argued that all four claims should be struck out. The judge noted that, at the time, the online system allowed claimants to enter judgments without proof of consent — a defect since rectified.

Turning to CPR 3.1(7), the court acknowledged that its power to revoke or vary orders is usually exercised sparingly, given the importance of finality. Previous authority (Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2422) underscored the rarity of such interventions, though the Supreme Court in AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16 had signalled a broader approach in exceptional circumstances.

Here, HHJ Pearce found that where finality was achieved by fraud — in this case, the false assertion of an admission — the court’s discretion could properly be invoked. The judgment obtained by P and one other claim, were set aside. All four claims were struck out as an abuse of process.

The decision reaffirms that while finality of litigation remains a cornerstone of civil procedure, it cannot be used as a shield for fraudulent conduct. For practitioners, it illustrates the court’s willingness to intervene under CPR 3.1(7) where dishonesty undermines the integrity of proceedings, particularly in the context of online claims.

On 8 September 2025, the Law Society released the third edition of its International Data Insights Report, comparing the performance of dispute resolution centres in England and Wales with courts and arbitral institutions worldwide.

Drawing on the Portland Commercial Courts Report 2025 and the London Commercial Court (“LCC”) Annual Report 2023–2024, the report confirms that the LCC remains the “leading international centre for the resolution of complex commercial litigation.” Between October 2023 and September 2024, the LCC issued 196 written judgments, significantly more than the New York Commercial Division (88) and the Dubai International Finance Centre (“DIFC”) Civil and Commercial Division (82). Efficiency was also highlighted, with more than half of all contested trials across the LCC jurisdictions (32 out of 59) completed within four working days.

The report also notes the establishment of specialist international commercial courts in jurisdictions including the Netherlands, France and Germany, many of which conduct hearings in English.

On arbitration, the report highlights the ongoing global preference for English law. In 2024, English law was chosen in 78% of LCIA cases (318 in total), was the most frequently selected law in new ICC cases (15%) and ranked second in cases before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) and the SCC (“Stockholm Chamber of Commerce”). London’s position as the global centre for maritime arbitration also remains unmatched, with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (“LMAA”) registering 1,733 new cases in 2024.

The report further underlines London’s enduring popularity as the world’s most preferred seat of arbitration, a position reaffirmed by the 2025 Queen Mary University of London/White & Case International Arbitration Survey.

You can reach the full report here.

On 15 September 2025, HMCTS released updated guidance for legal professionals on the use of the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot (“OCMC”), established under Practice Direction 51R. The guidance supplements earlier material published in March 2025 on issuing claims and follows the July 2025 update that made use of the OCMC mandatory for professional users in eligible money claims.

The new guidance focuses on responses to claims up to £25,000 and sets out how practitioners can use MyHMCTS, the online case management platform, once registered. It covers three key areas:

• Defending or rejecting claims: Guidance explains the registration process, submission of a notice of change and the steps involved in requesting extensions of time, filing a defence, rejecting claims and issuing counterclaims (the latter resulting in the claim being transferred out of the OCMC Pilot).

• Admitting or part-admitting claims: The guidance provides a walkthrough of the process when a defendant admits all or part of a claim online.

• Managing a defence: Detailed instructions are given on uploading evidence, accessing case files, managing attendees and availability, receiving orders and notices and preparing for trial. In fast-track cases, readiness can be confirmed online, while in intermediate and multi-track cases, trial bundles may also be uploaded directly through MyHMCTS.

In addition, the guidance provides contact information for support with case management and technical issues. The publication represents part of HMCTS’s continuing effort to expand and modernise online civil procedure through the OCMC Pilot, with the aim of making claim handling more efficient and accessible for legal professionals.

Source: HMCTS, Professional Guidance on Responding to Online Civil Money Claims (15 September 2025).

On 11 September 2025, HMCTS released its Reform Digital Services Evaluation Report, providing a detailed assessment of the impact of digitalisation initiatives introduced under the HMCTS Reform Programme. The evaluation covered seven services: the Damages Claims Portal (“DCP”), OCMC, divorce, family public law, financial remedy, probate and Social Security and Child Support. Supplementary evaluation documents were also published for each individual service.

For dispute resolution practitioners, the findings relating to the DCP and OCMC are particularly relevant. The DCP was found to have had only a limited impact on access to justice. Although efficiency improved for straightforward cases, uptake declined towards the end of the evaluation period. Errors were harder to correct in the system, often resulting in cases dropping out. There was also evidence that some professional users deliberately caused cases to drop out early to avoid anticipated delays. Since the DCP did not accommodate all case types, many users felt that it ultimately increased their workload.

By contrast, the OCMC service recorded a modest increase in uptake. However, not all eligible cases used the system, largely because certain aspects—such as enforcement—remained outside its scope. The average duration of cases reduced during the evaluation period, but this was not directly compared against paper-based processes. Judges reported a higher frequency of errors than under the legacy system and HMCTS staff noted that the OCMC was not a true “end-to-end” digital service, as cases inevitably fell out of the system at some stage, creating duplication of effort.

The report also observed that digital reform improved access to and the timeliness of hearings and decisions for public users. Professional uptake became strong once services were mandated, though concerns were raised about the speed of compulsory roll-out, the adequacy of testing and the limited coverage of certain case types.

In conclusion, the report emphasises that digital services must be designed to cover the full user journey and integrate with wider processes. It cautions that digitalisation alone cannot eliminate errors and that systems must be tailored to the practical context in which they operate. While professional users often comply once digital services become mandatory, some revert to alternative channels where functionality remains insufficient.

Source: HMCTS, Reform Digital Services Evaluation Report (11 September 2025).

On 11 September 2025, CIArb released its Guideline on Third-Party Funding (TPF), a resource designed to provide clarity and practical guidance to parties, counsel and arbitrators engaging with funding arrangements in international arbitration.

The Guideline is divided into two main parts. Part 1 explains the funding process, from approaching a funder to negotiating and finalising a litigation funding agreement (“LFA”). It highlights critical provisions such as pricing structures, portfolio arrangements and “waterfall” clauses that determine how recoveries are distributed between the funder and funded party. It also stresses the importance of due diligence on funders and introduces after-the-event insurance as a potential component of the funding structure.

Part 2 focuses on the conduct of arbitrations involving funded parties. It outlines the expected involvement of funders in strategic decisions — such as settlements and the choice of arbitrators — and underscores the significance of complying with applicable laws and arbitral rules on disclosure. The guideline suggests that early disclosure of funding can mitigate disruption later in the proceedings. The document further addresses issues such as security for costs, non-party payments of advances and disputes arising from settlement offers.

Drafted with input from funders, practitioners and arbitrators, the Guideline offers a practical, balanced perspective and is expected to be particularly valuable for parties less familiar with third-party funding. It represents a step towards greater transparency and consistency in the use of funding in international arbitration.

On 9 September 2025, the ASA’s User Council released a whitepaper entitled “Taming the Beast”, addressing the growing challenges associated with document production in international arbitration. The publication reflects widespread dissatisfaction among arbitration users, who view document production as an increasingly burdensome exercise, leading to delays and disproportionate costs.

The whitepaper observes that the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence remain the primary framework for document production but suggests that they are often applied more broadly than originally intended, with insufficient attention to the requirement of materiality. It also notes the divide between common law and civil law approaches, which has further complicated practice.

ASA puts forward a series of recommendations. For parties, it suggests agreeing in advance on measures to restrict document production in arbitration agreements, ranging from excluding it altogether to limiting the number or type of requests and allocating costs to the requesting party. For tribunals, the paper advocates a more active role, including early timetabling, encouraging restraint, convening case management conferences for specific requests and capping the scope of disclosure. On technology, the whitepaper highlights the potential of AI tools to improve efficiency, particularly in identifying privileged or confidential material.

While it remains uncertain whether these proposals will influence arbitral institutions or gain widespread acceptance, the whitepaper provides a detailed and practical roadmap aimed at rebalancing efficiency and fairness in the use of document production.

You can reach the full White Paper here.

On 29 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia in Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Spain [2025] FCA 1028 confirmed that four intra-EU ICSID arbitral awards against Spain are enforceable in Australia, collectively valued at around €500 million.

The awards arose from claims by investors from Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Jersey, who alleged that Spain’s retrospective reduction of renewable electricity tariffs breached the Energy Charter Treaty. ICSID tribunals found Spain liable and issued awards in favour of RREEF, 9REN, Watkins and NextEra. After unsuccessful annulment and revision attempts at ICSID, Spain resisted enforcement proceedings in Australia.

Spain argued state immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth), invoked the CJEU’s decisions in Achmea and Komstroy (invalidating intra-EU arbitration clauses under EU law), raised EU state aid rules and challenged the validity of award assignments to Blasket. The European Commission also unsuccessfully sought to intervene in support of Spain’s position.

Justice Stewart dismissed these arguments. Relying on the High Court’s decision in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sarl [2023] 275 CLR 292, the court held that Spain’s accession to the ICSID Convention constituted a waiver of state immunity for recognition and enforcement proceedings, though not for execution. The court reaffirmed that the ICSID regime is a closed system: absent annulment or stay under the convention, awards must be recognised and enforced upon presentation of an authentic certified award.

The judgment further held that:

• Australia, as a non-EU state, is unaffected by EU law and Spain’s ICSID obligations are erga omnes partes, not subject to modification by EU treaties.

• EU treaties could not modify or displace the ICSID Convention under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

• Assignments of ICSID awards are valid under Australian law as choses in action, with no prohibition under international law.

• Sections 32–35 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) are constitutionally sound and preserve the court’s role in verifying the authenticity of awards.

The decision underscores that Australia remains a reliable and creditor-friendly forum for the enforcement of ICSID awards, even in the face of complex intra-EU challenges.

Case: Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Spain [2025] FCA 1028 (29 August 2025) (Stewart J).

On 4 August 2025, the UAE’s Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority (the “Authority”) issued a significant judgment in Application No (1) of 2025, settling a long-standing debate on the signature requirements for arbitral awards. The Authority confirmed that it is sufficient for the tribunal to sign only the final page of an award, clarifying that there is no statutory obligation to sign every page.

The issue stemmed from divergent interpretations of Article 41 of the Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No 6 of 2018). While Article 41 requires arbitral awards to be signed, it does not specify the manner in which signatures must appear. Courts in different Emirates had adopted inconsistent approaches.

In Civil Cassation No 403/2020, the Dubai Court of Cassation took a strict stance, ruling that enforcement of an award breached public policy where only the last page was signed. Conversely, the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation in Civil Cassation No 5/2024 held that a signature on the final page was sufficient and that requiring signatures on every page was not a public policy matter under the New York Convention.

To resolve the conflict, the Authority, chaired by His Excellency Judge Mohammed Hamad Al-Badi, ruled that:

• an arbitral award is valid and enforceable where the arbitrators’ signatures appear on the final page;

• there is no statutory requirement for signatures on each page; and

• treating the absence of signatures on every page as a public policy issue would undermine the Convention’s objective of facilitating recognition and enforcement.

The ruling, which is binding on all UAE courts, creates a uniform standard and removes a technical ground for challenging awards. By aligning with international practice, the decision enhances legal certainty and reinforces the UAE’s standing as a leading arbitration hub in the region.

Case: Decision No (1) of 2025 (Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority), 4 August 2025.

Benjamin Wells and Ceyda Ilgen from Belgravia Law were delighted to participate in Singapore Convention Week 2025, held from 25 to 29 August 2025. This event provided a brilliant opportunity to engage with clients, colleagues and industry peers on the latest developments in international arbitration.

As one of the leading gatherings in the arbitral calendar, the event brought together experts from across the globe to share insights, exchange knowledge and explore opportunities for collaboration. It provided an excellent platform for meaningful discussions, networking and professional growth and we were pleased to represent the firm at such a significant occasion.

Belgravia Law is grateful to the organisers for hosting such a dynamic and insightful programme and to everyone who connected with us during the week. It was a pleasure to engage in valuable discussions and to strengthen our international relationships.

As part of Singapore Convention Week 2025, Belgravia Law was proud to sponsor the Eurasian Legal Professionals’ Forum Drinks Reception, held on Thursday, 28 August 2025 at the Polo Bar, Maxwell Reserve Autograph Collection.

The reception provided an excellent opportunity to bring together leading figures from the legal and business communities for an evening of engaging conversation and networking. We extend our warm thanks to the Eurasian Legal Professionals’ Forum for hosting the event, to our fellow sponsors and to all who joined us on the night.

Your contributions and presence made the evening a true success and we look forward to building on the connections established in Singapore.

Belgravia Law was also honoured to participate in the Istanbul Arbitration Days, which took place from 16 to 19 September 2025 in Istanbul, Türkiye at the prestigious Çırağan Palace. Stepan Puchkov, Partner at Belgravia Law and Ceyda Ilgen attended on behalf of the firm, meeting with colleagues and clients from around the world.

The event attracted more than 2,000 participants, including international arbitration practitioners, industry experts, academics and students and featured a world-class programme addressing current and emerging issues in international arbitration. We thank the organisers for delivering such a high-calibre event and are grateful to all those with whom we had the opportunity to meet.

We value the rich discussions and collaborations that took place during Istanbul Arbitration Days and look forward to continuing the conversations and partnerships that began there.

On 17 September 2025, the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“AAA-ICDR”) confirmed that it will introduce an AI arbitrator this November for documents-only construction disputes. The initiative is positioned as a means of delivering faster, more cost-efficient and reliable arbitration in a field where speed is particularly important due to the high volume of cases. Plans are underway to expand its use to other sectors, dispute types and higher-value claims in 2026.

The AI arbitrator has been trained on over 1,500 real construction arbitration awards and refined with input from experienced construction practitioners and members of the AAA-ICDR Construction Panel. To enhance clarity and consistency, the system relies on a structured legal prompt library and conversational AI, producing draft awards that are then reviewed by human arbitrators. Under this “human-in-the-loop” model, the human arbitrator retains final responsibility for assessing and, where necessary, amending the AI-generated award before it is issued.

Diana Didia, the AAA-ICDR’s executive vice president and chief technology and innovation officer, stressed that ethics and accountability were central to the design process, supported by strict governance standards, validation frameworks and collaboration with QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey.

This development follows earlier initiatives such as the AAAi Panellist Search tool launched in October 2024. However, the AI arbitrator marks a more ambitious step and is expected to draw close attention from practitioners and arbitral institutions worldwide.

Key questions remain: the scope of disputes eligible for the tool (likely cases under US $25,000), whether participation will be voluntary or mandatory and whether dissatisfied parties will have access to a human appellate mechanism. Most significantly, uncertainty lingers over whether an award generated through AI would be recognised and enforceable under the New York Convention or national arbitration laws.

AI is becoming an increasingly powerful tool within legal practice, offering opportunities to streamline research, draft documents and manage litigation more efficiently. However, as recent cases have demonstrated, reliance on GenAI tools without adequate verification can lead to serious professional failings. The English courts have now issued one of their clearest warnings yet: misuse of AI in legal proceedings poses significant risks to the administration of justice and will not be tolerated.

In R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court raised serious concerns about the use of GenAI tools in litigation. The court considered two cases under the “Hamid” jurisdiction where lawyers had presented material containing non-existent or inaccurate authorities, apparently generated through AI tools. Although contempt proceedings were not pursued, the court referred the lawyers involved to their regulators and issued a wide-ranging warning that misuse of AI threatens the integrity of the justice system.

Background

The cases were heard under the Hamid jurisdiction, established in R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), which allows the court to regulate its own procedures and ensure lawyers comply with their duties to the court. Both matters involved the suspected use of GenAI to produce legal arguments or witness statements containing false citations.

In R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC, a barrister and solicitor from Haringey Law Centre filed judicial review grounds citing five non-existent cases. When challenged, they gave inconsistent explanations and failed to address the issue adequately. Costs were awarded against them, and the matter was referred to the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”).

In Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC, a solicitor relied on 45 authorities, 18 of which did not exist, in witness statements drafted with input from his client. He admitted failing to verify the sources, apologised and reported himself to the SRA.

In both matters, the court noted the serious professional lapses involved but, given the circumstances, declined to commence contempt proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning

The Divisional Court, comprising Dame Victoria Sharp P and Johnson J, emphasised the professional and ethical duties of lawyers. These include the obligation not to mislead the court, to verify authorities and to present arguments responsibly. The court noted that GenAI tools can produce outputs that appear authoritative but may include fabricated case law, inaccurate quotations, or false assertions.

The judges stressed that lawyers who use AI tools for research or drafting have a professional duty to check accuracy against authoritative sources such as the National Archives, official Law Reports and databases from reputable publishers. Reliance on clients, trainees, or unsupervised AI-generated material does not absolve practitioners of responsibility.

The court also highlighted its powers under the Hamid jurisdiction: admonition, referral to regulators, costs sanctions, striking out, or contempt proceedings. In serious cases, misuse of AI could even constitute perverting the course of justice.

Implications for the Profession

The court warned that misuse of GenAI poses a direct risk to public confidence in the justice system. It called on heads of chambers, managing partners and regulators to take urgent action to ensure practitioners are properly trained, supervised and equipped to use AI responsibly. The judgment will be circulated to the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Council of the Inns of Court, with an invitation to consider further safeguards.

Importantly, the court underlined that freely available GenAI tools are not reliable for legal research. Their plausible but inaccurate outputs make them unsuitable without rigorous verification. Guidance from the Bar Council, BSB, SRA and judiciary has already cautioned against uncritical reliance on AI, but the court found that guidance alone is insufficient and must be backed by enforceable standards.

Commentary

This judgment represents one of the most direct judicial interventions to date on the risks of AI misuse in litigation. While contempt proceedings were not pursued, the court left no doubt that future cases may lead to severe sanctions. Law firms and chambers must act now to implement policies on AI use, provide training and ensure robust supervision.

For practitioners, the lesson is clear: AI can assist but never replace legal judgment and unverified AI outputs must not be placed before the court.

Case: R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) (6 June 2025, Dame Victoria Sharp P and Johnson J).

The Council of Europe has announced two new initiatives designed to evaluate the risks and impacts of AI in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Both initiatives are based on the HUDERIA methodology (Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Impact Assessment for AI), which provides a structured approach to assessing AI systems across their lifecycle. HUDERIA was developed to help protect the public from emerging risks, requiring organisations to prepare risk mitigation plans and conduct regular reassessments to ensure ongoing compliance with human rights and safety standards.

Use of the methodology is voluntary, but organisations are encouraged to apply it when developing and deploying AI systems, in order to evaluate their impact within their wider social context. According to the Council of Europe, HUDERIA will play a key role in supporting implementation of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, recently adopted to guide responsible AI governance across member states.

Practical Implications

For organisations developing or using AI, HUDERIA offers a practical tool for risk management and compliance. By adopting the methodology, businesses can demonstrate due diligence in assessing AI systems against human rights, democratic values and the rule of law. Governments and regulators may also view its use as evidence of best practice, even though it is voluntary. Over time, applying HUDERIA could become a benchmark standard for trustworthy AI deployment in Europe and beyond.