Enforcing arbitration awards – cradle to grave strategies, from interim relief in support of the arbitration through to final asset recovery

Panel: Ros Prince and Priya Grigoriadis (Stephenson Harwood), Ricky Diwan KC and Naomi Hart (Essex Court Chambers), Wendy Lin (WongPartnership), Sara Margolis (MoloLamken LLP), Matthias Gstoehl (Schellenberg Wittmer), Faisal Alhazmi (Al Sahlawi & Co (UAE))

At LIDW2025, Stephenson Harwood and Essex Court Chambers convened an expert international panel to discuss enforcement strategies “from cradle to grave” - including interim relief, global asset tracing and jurisdiction-specific risks.

The key message? Winning the award is only the beginning. Enforcing it - especially across borders - is where strategy, speed, and strategic structure really matter.

Key takeaways included the importance of expressly agreeing the law governing the arbitration agreement itself, not just the law governing the underlying contract. Parties often assume the two will align, but where the arbitration clause is silent, default rules can produce unexpected results. The newly enacted Arbitration Act 2025 addresses this issue: once in force, it will introduce a clear default rule that the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement, unless the parties expressly provide otherwise (read Christopher Wenn’s article on the new Act here). Similarly, care must be taken to ensure that the relief sought in the arbitration proceedings is consistent with what the arbitration clause permits - adding catch-all wording (such as “and any other relief the tribunal considers just”) can be vital to preserve flexibility for enforcement.

Arguments that an award is unenforceable on public policy grounds - such as being unconscionable or contrary to domestic moral or legal standards - are increasingly raised in jurisdictions like Thailand and Vietnam. While such arguments may find some traction in those forums, they face a very high threshold in leading arbitration centres such as Singapore and London, where the public policy exception will only succeed in exceptional cases that truly "shock the conscience."

Interim relief tools such as freezing orders, receiverships, and proprietary injunctions remain essential, but must be deployed quickly and strategically. In post-Brexit England and Wales, certain reliefs (particularly those with penal consequences for third parties) require nuanced handling. Enforcement in asset-friendly jurisdictions like Switzerland is possible, but only where a sufficient connection and risk of dissipation can be shown. Where assets are held by third parties or nominees, careful planning is needed - especially if seeking proprietary remedies that courts in some jurisdictions may treat with scepticism.

In the US, section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code (28 U.S.C. § 1782) offers a valuable discovery route that can be used when a party or asset has a US nexus. Once the award is recognised, broad discovery powers can be used to subpoena banks and uncover financial information for example, providing a potent addition to the enforcement toolkit.

Insolvency proceedings can offer additional investigatory powers - such as access to company documents that may be unavailable through standard enforcement routes - but they come at a cost. The process is often slower, more resource-intensive, and procedurally complex. In contrast, in jurisdictions like the UAE, civil enforcement mechanisms are generally quicker and more efficient, with enforcement steps often initiated within weeks. While insolvency may have strategic value in specific circumstances, its advantages must be carefully balanced against the time, cost, and effort involved.

Effective enforcement is as much about timing as it is about legal tools. Once an award is issued, speed becomes critical - particularly where assets are at risk of dissipation or held through complex third-party structures. Common law jurisdictions offer a powerful enforcement toolkit, but success depends on preparation. Identifying asset locations, anticipating procedural hurdles, and structuring relief accordingly all need to happen early. The enforcement phase can reward those who act decisively - and catch out those who don’t.

I attended three other compelling talks at LIDW2025 - catch up here if you missed them: 

• The culture of London arbitration: going viral or an English virus?
• Use your discretion: good faith constraints on discretionary contractual powers.
• AI in document review: best practices and lessons learned.

Burges Salmon also co-hosted two events for LIDW2025: Complex Disputes in the Public Eye I: Balancing Risks and Demands across Civil, Criminal and Regulatory Spheres; and Part II: Leveraging Technology and Artificial Intelligence to Get Ahead of the Game. Check out Tom Whittaker’s LinkedIn post and share your thoughts with us if you attended.

Once an award is issued, speed becomes critical — enforcement success often hinges on how early you’ve prepared, not just how well you argued.