loading...

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Enyo Law’s international arbitration group is experienced in representing both investors and States in arbitrations under international investment treaties (including bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty).

Our multilingual team has experience of investment treaty arbitrations under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), as well as under the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), and the International Court of Arbitration (ICC).

As an independent firm, Enyo Law has the agility required to assemble, on very short notice, bespoke teams of lawyers. Our team comprises both individuals with backgrounds in public international law, and in private law. We are able to work in partnership with other law firms, leading legal scholars and barristers across jurisdictions. Our aim is to offer bespoke, high-quality, legal services, in the most cost-effective manner.

Enyo Law’s independence also allows us on occasion to make alternative fee arrangements applicable to clients’ financial needs. We are also able to advise on the availability of third-party funding for investment claims, and frequently do so.

We also represent clients in connection with the enforcement of investment treaty arbitration awards.

Representative cases:
  • Acting for IMC Invest in an ICSID arbitration against the Kyrgyz Republic under the US – Kyrgyzstan BIT arising out of a ban on uranium mining.
  • Acting for Ascent Resources Plc and Ascent Slovenia Ltd in an ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Slovenia under the ECT arising out of a ban on low-volume hydraulic stimulation in the production of hydrocarbons.
  • Acting for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in an ICC arbitration brought by Qatari investors in the pharmaceutical sector under the OIC agreement.
  • Advising a Turkish investor in relation to Bilateral Investment Treaty claims worth USD50 million against the Republic of Azerbaijan arising out of investments under a contract with a state utility company.
News
Mar 21, 2025
The Supreme Court’s decision on the ‘immovables rule’ in Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39
Summary On 20 November 2024, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39. The...
Mar 12, 2025
BNZ v Gloriavale: Contractual discretions to be exercised for a proper purpose
Introduction In a recent judgment, the New Zealand Court of Appeal (“the Court”) has signaled a possible change of approach...
Mar 5, 2025
Settle down, settle down: High Court issues first recorded compulsory mediation order
In the landmark case of DKH Retail Limited and others v City Football Group Limited [2024] EWHC 3231 (Ch), the...
Feb 28, 2025
The Privy Council upholds shareholder’s personal right to bring a claim following an improper share issue
Enyo recently acted, alongside Ogier (Cayman) LLP,  for Tianrui (International) Holding Company Ltd  in the company’s successful appeal before the...