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
Aug 17, 2026
Cometsambre SA v Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA HIG 5321: The English High Court provides important guidance on the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act
Introduction and summary In a recent decision, Cometsambre SA v Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA, the English High Court provided important...
Aug 11, 2026
Estate of Euan McIntyre Lindsay & Anor v Outlook Finance Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 1005
Can a judgment procured by fraud be set aside against a non-fraudulent party, in circumstances where an innocent party adopted...
Aug 5, 2026
Liability in the Age of AI: The UKJT confirms existing law can meet new challenges
In July 2026, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (“UKJT”) published its ‘Legal statement on liability for AI harms under the private...
Jul 28, 2026
Supreme Court Confirms the Narrow Scope of Issue Estoppel
The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment on the limits of issue estoppel in Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and...