Former EU judge Sir Christopher Vajda KC used a keynote at the IFILA annual conference to address the sensitivities of investment arbitration in areas such as climate change and proposals for a permanent tribunal and appellate mechanism. Daphne de Groot and Wies Schreurs of Enhance Arbitration in Amsterdam report.
Read “A former EU judge on balancing interests in investment arbitration”
This article, written by Francis Hornyold-Strickland and Hazem EL Mawass, considers how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the Kingdom) is building its own sports arbitration framework, and what that framework does, and does not, share with the more mature English model.
To read full article click here: From Riyadh to London: A Comparative Guide to Sports Arbitration in Saudi Arabia and England & Wales
The guide is intended to provide an overview of the Football Governance Act 2025 and the powers and duties of the Independent Football Regulator. It aims to identify and explain several key legal, regulatory, and practical issues that are likely to arise as the new regime begins to operate in practice, including issues relating to licensing, enforcement, the ODSE regime, and the IFR’s investigatory and decision-making powers. It also offers practical guidance on reviews and appeals, including proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. It is not intended to be exhaustive, nor does it constitute legal advice. The Guide is up to date as of 7 May 2026.
To read the full guide please scan the QR code below or click to download here Monckton Chambers Guide to the Independent Football Regulator.
Clíodhna Kelleher has contributed a chapter to a new edited volume examining the role of female judicial leaders of courts worldwide, ‘Female Chief Justices in Comparative Perspective’, which is published by Edward Elgar Publishing. The book investigates women’s contributions to constitutional guardianship and to feminist institutional and jurisprudential change across global court systems.
Clíodhna’s chapter focuses on the Hon. Mrs Justice Susan Denham, the first woman to serve as Chief Justice of Ireland.
This collection of three articles, prepared by members of Monckton Chambers, analyses the principal issues for English law contracts arising from the outbreak of hostilities between the United States, Israel and Iran in February 2026 and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The first article examines force majeure under English law, addressing the critical distinction between “prevention” and “hindrance” thresholds and their application across the oil and gas, maritime and construction sectors. The second article considers the rapidly evolving sanctions landscape, the interaction between sanctions clauses and force majeure provisions, and the particular challenges that sanctions compliance poses for international arbitration. The third article addresses the residual English law doctrines — frustration, illegality, change-in-law and material adverse change — that may provide relief where force majeure clauses are absent or inadequate. Together, the articles are intended to provide a practical framework for solicitors and in-house counsel advising clients with English law-governed contracts affected by the crisis.
Read the full article: The Iran War and English Law: Force Majeure, Sanctions, Frustration and Residual Considerations
The comments made in this article are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.
Professor Renato Nazzini KC (Hon), formerly a partner of LMS’s London office and a leading academic at King’s College London, will join Monckton Chambers as a member from the end of April.
To read full article please click here.
Perhaps space activities have never been wholly peaceful, but recent years have seen the heightened militarisation and weaponisation of outer space.
Of course, in a full-blown military situation, dispute resolution may not be the primary area of anyone’s concern. But space has always been a place in which states engage in activities that entail geopolitical positions or support national security. The activities of one state will often have the potential to interfere with or negatively affect the activities of another. This could involve common day-to-day radio interference, laser interference, inadvertent damage caused by orbital debris, or now active threats posed by satellites deliberately interfering with the activities of those of another state.
Against that backdrop, it is increasingly necessary for both states and private actors to consider the legal ramifications of their military or military-adjacent space activities. This article examines the international legal position on the above and how this affects the abilities of both states and private actors to protect their rights in space.
Read the full article, published in the Global Arbitration Review’s The Guide To Aviation and Space Disputes (2nd edition): Geopolitical conflicts and space: considering the law of war and sanctions
On 7 April 2026, President Trump announced a two-week ceasefire in the US-Iran conflict, bringing a tentative pause to the hostilities that have convulsed global markets since the joint US-Israeli strikes of 28 February 2026. The five-week conflict, which shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, triggered the most severe disruption to global energy supply chains since the 1970s oil crisis.
This article examines the commercial and legal implications of the ceasefire across four sectors: maritime, commodities trading, oil and gas
(including LNG), and aviation.
Read the full article: The US-Iran Ceasefire: Implications for Maritime, Commodities, Oil & Gas, and Aviation
The comments made in this article are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.
Spotting Your Action Under the New Procurement Act 2023 written by Michael Bowsher KC, Fiona Banks, Jen Coyne and Charlotte McLean, of Monckton Chambers for The Legal 500 Hot Topics.
When should a supplier consider seeking advice on its rights under the Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”)? In our experience, suppliers often do so too late and many claims of substance do not progress because they are brought too late and are therefore wholly or partly time-barred.
In this article we identify the important stages of a procurement; the enforcement process under the new Act; and the key pressure points in the process when suppliers may wish to consider their rights if they want to be sure that these are fully respected. Given the tight timescales to bring a challenge it is important for suppliers and those advising them to consider the potentially fertile ground for challenges throughout the full procurement process. If a would-be supplier is being adversely treated in the procurement process, it will nearly always be necessary to act within the short time limits. As previously, a claim must be brought within 30 days from the day on which the supplier first knew or ought to have known about the circumstances giving rise to the claim for most challenges (ss.106(1) and 65(2)(c)). Crucially, however, there is now only an eight day standstill period (for interim relief against debarment, s.63(2) and on award, s.51(2)).
The Official Journal of the European Union has published notice of an action brought by Google seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 September 2025 in Case AT.40760 concerning’s Google Adtech and data-related practices. That Decision imposed a fine of almost 3 billion euros on Google. Josh and Jack are instructed by Google challenging that decision and fine on the basis of 17 pleas of law, as summarised in the Official Journal here.
