In Enkev Beheer B.V. v Republic of Poland, PCA Case No. 2013-01 (dated April 2014 but only recently published), an UNCITRAL tribunal declined jurisdiction under the Netherlands/Poland BIT, finding that there had been no actual decision to expropriate on the part on the respondent, nor any measure indirectly depriving the claimant of its investment. However, in a separate Award on Costs the tribunal concluded that its powers regarding the apportionment of costs were circumscribed by Article 12(9) of the BIT. Article 42(1) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which provides that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the unsuccessful party was excluded from the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the claimant and respondent each bore the costs of their appointed co–arbitrator and all their own costs, and the costs of the presiding arbitrator equally, even though the claimant was unsuccessful in the arbitration.

In A v B [2015] EWHC 1944 (Comm), the English Commercial Court dismissed an application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The court found the applicant had signed an agreement, and on a true construction that agreement contained an arbitration clause.

An amendment to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) came into force on 17 July 2015. The Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 adjusts the circumstances under which the opt-in provisions in Schedule 2 to the Ordinance do not automatically apply, as well as updating the list of signatories to the New York Convention (for background information, see Legal update, Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance: further amendments tabled).

The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation has reported that Russia has succeeded in an ad hoc arbitration against German Company, Sana Consulting, regarding an investment project in the Kaliningrad region of Russia. The award is not published, but reportedly, the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute as it did not fall within the Convention for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany of 1989. With thanks to Maxim Kulkov and Elena Zaltser, KK&P (Moscow).

The Australian government has published China-Australia FTA (ChAFTA): myths versus realities, which addresses misconceptions about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), including its investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions.