On 2 March 2026, Mr Justice Bright of the English Commercial Court dismissed Russia’s objections to enforcement of arbitration awards worth more than USD 50 billion in favour of the former shareholders of Yukos. Russia only succeeded in preventing the enforcement of costs awarded to the Yukos shareholders in the arbitrations, which totalled c. USD 50 million plus interest. This first instance judgment by the English court is another setback for Russia in the Yukos saga since the Dutch Supreme Court’s conclusive dismissal in October 2025 of its attempt to set aside the awards. In addition, Mr Justice Bright took this opportunity to provide important clarifications on the principles and approaches applicable in considering a public policy objection to enforcement under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act of 1996. In confirming and summarising the pro-enforcement regime of the English courts, Mr Justice Bright commented that: “…litigation of this kind is not a moral beauty contest. Despite the references above to public policy and universal morality, it has not been the function of this judgment to grade either [the former shareholders of Yukos] or the Russian Federation for morality; nor for beauty. In investor-state disputes, these qualities are not always present in abundance. The New York Convention and the implementing provisions in ss. 101-103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are inherently pro-enforcement. Within the parameters set by the authorities that I have discussed, they can be relied on by sinners, no less than by saints. It is difficult for any defendant to resist enforcement of a valid New York Convention arbitration award; especially when (as here) the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is no longer open to challenge. The moral failings that the Russian Federation has alleged… whether or not they could be made out at trial, are simply incapable of affording any defence – save to the very limited extent that I have indicated in relation to costs.” This note provides a brief background of the dispute between Russia and the Yukos shareholders. It focuses on Mr Justice Bright’s articulation of the applicable principles to section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act and their wider implication for parties looking to rely on allegations of fraud, corruption or illegalities in resisting enforcement of an arbitration award under the New York Convention.

A recent decision by the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court in  Oswin v (1) Otila (2) Ondray [2025] DIFC ARB 032 (16 September 2025) has provided welcome clarity on the supervisory jurisdiction of the DIFC Court over arbitrations seated in the DIFC.

Conditions precedent play an important role in contracts and it is often said that a party cannot benefit from its own breach. But in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC and others [2025] UKSC 39, the Supreme Court rejected a principle from a House of Lords decision dating back to 1881, concerning whether a party can wrongfully, and in breach of contract, prevent the fulfilment of a condition precedent to that party’s payment obligation such that the innocent party cannot make a simple debt claim. In this BCLP Insight, we examine the case and consider the key takeaways.