Could alleged irregularities in a foreign arbitration justify refusing enforcement under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996? Should English courts revisit the merits of an arbitral award already upheld by the courts at the seat ? Did the public policy exception extend to cases involving state-controlled companies?

The Court of Appeal partially recognised and enforced the UNCITRAL award, allowed recovery of compensation from Ukraine and confirmed Ukraine’s obligation to ensure free transfer of dividends.

When parties have not expressly chosen the governing law of the arbitration agreement, should the law of the main contract or the law of the seat of arbitration apply?

Whether the arbitration clause in the English-law-governed bonds was itself governed by English law or by the law of the seat of arbitration (French law)? Whether the English courts could properly grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Russia, despite the arbitration having a foreign seat (Paris)

Does the English court have jurisdiction under section 44 to make an order for evidence or document preservation against non-parties to an arbitration agreement? If not, can the claim form nevertheless be served out of the jurisdiction on those non-parties under CPR r 62.5(1)(b)?

Should the High Court judgment about a private arbitration be made public, or should it remain confidential?

Did the arbitrator commit a “serious irregularity” under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to consider crucial evidence, and if so, should the award be set aside?

Can a court in one Member State grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in another Member State’s court when there is an arbitration agreement?

Did the arbitration clause cover disputes over whether the contract was procured by fraud or bribery? Could the arbitration clause itself be rescinded along with the main contract, or was it a separate agreement under section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1996?