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.
Dec 4, 2023
Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter –  Supreme Court provides clarity on limitation periods in fraud context  
Introduction Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides for the postponement of the limitation period in cases of fraud,...
Nov 29, 2023
Oliver Rule joins Enyo Law from Allen & Overy
We are delighted to welcome Oliver Rule, who joins the firm as a partner. Oliver has almost two decades of...
Nov 22, 2023
The wide remit of a section 423 Insolvency Act claim
It is well known that courts are extremely reluctant to “pierce the corporate veil” and disregard the fundamental principle of...
Nov 15, 2023
High Court reiterates need to prove reliance on implied misrepresentations
The High Court has dismissed claims against Credit Suisse relating to its sale of a collateralised debt obligation (“CDO”) “as...