Enforcement of arbitral awards and interim relief
Over the last decade the rise in popularity of international arbitration as a form of dispute resolution has meant that the enforceability of such awards in national courts has been a rapidly changing landscape. Arbitral institutions have changed their rules to ensure greater protection from judicial intervention. Many domestic courts have moved away from their historical recalcitrance towards a pro-enforcement and non-interventionist approach.
This trend is illustrated in recent changes in arbitration legislation in countries such as Hong Kong, Dubai, and Singapore, and in landmark court rulings, such as the judgements of the Supreme Court of India in Bharat Aluminium Co v Kaiser Aluminium Technical  9 SCC 552, recently affirmed in Union of India v Reliance Industries  SC 385.
The availability of emergency interim relief to protect the subject matter of the dispute (funds, assets, evidence) may be critical to the success of the arbitration process itself. Whether a protection order can be obtained from a domestic court or an emergency arbitrator will often depend on the interplay between the contract arbitration rules, the domestic law of the country which is the seat of the arbitration, and the law of the country in which assets are located, which may need to be protected.
Members of Atkin Chambers have exceptional amount of expertise available to clients to advise and guide them through this complex landscape.