A Foreign Investor's Guide To International Commercial Arbitration In Türkiye

For any foreign company or investor, resolving cross-border disputes efficiently is paramount. Türkiye, strategically positioned at the crossroads of global commerce, has cultivated a modern and sophisticated legal framework that strongly favors international arbitration. This alignment with global standards, rooted in the UNCITRAL Model Law, makes it a reliable and increasingly preferred jurisdiction for international dispute resolution.

This guide provides a comprehensive, practical overview of the legal landscape for international commercial arbitration in Türkiye, prepared by our firm for foreign investors and their in-house counsel.

I. Introduction: Why Arbitrate in Türkiye?

When a cross-border dispute arises, the choice of forum is a critical strategic decision. While litigation in Turkish state courts is a viable path, our experience shows that the commercial realities of a multi-year litigation process often make international arbitration a more business-savvy alternative.

The Commercial Case for Arbitration

For foreign parties, the advantages of arbitration are distinct and compelling:

• Efficiency and Speed: The most significant advantage is speed. A complex commercial dispute navigating the Turkish court system, through first instance, appeal, and cassation, can often take 3-5 years, or even longer, to reach a final, non-appealable decision. In stark contrast, an international arbitration, which under Art. 10(B) of the International Arbitration Law ("IAL") (Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu) must be concluded within one year (unless extended), can typically be concluded in 1-2 years. This 1-year time limit begins from the arbitrator's appointment (for a sole arbitrator) or the tribunal's first procedural meeting (for a panel).
• Expertise: Arbitration grants parties the power to select arbitrators who are genuine experts in their specific industry, be it construction, energy, M&A, or technology. This is a crucial benefit compared to state court litigation, where cases are assigned to judges who are, by necessity, legal generalists.
• Finality and Enforceability: An arbitral award is final and binding. It is not subject to a full appeal on the merits. As we will explore in Section VIII, the grounds for challenging an award under IAL Art. 15 are exceptionally narrow, providing a level of legal certainty that litigation cannot match.
• Neutrality: Arbitration provides a neutral forum, removing any "home court" advantage and allowing parties to choose a procedural language (such as English) and an applicable law they are comfortable with.

The "Why Türkiye?" Advantage

Türkiye is not merely a signatory to key treaties; it has actively fostered an "arbitration-friendly" jurisdiction. The Turkish judiciary, led by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), has consistently adopted a pro-arbitration stance in its recent jurisprudence. This judicial support, which limits intervention and respects the will of the parties, combined with the rise of modern, world-class institutions like the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC), makes Türkiye a sophisticated and reliable seat for resolving international disputes.

II. The Legal Framework: A Modern, Two-Pillar System

Understanding the legal architecture is the first step. Türkiye's arbitration system is built on two pillars, both derived from the UNCITRAL Model Law, which ensures immediate familiarity for international practitioners.

1. International Arbitration Law No. 4686: This is the primary statute you will encounter. The IAL governs arbitrations where the seat (place) of arbitration is in Türkiye and the dispute contains a "foreign element" as defined in Art. 2. Parties can also agree to apply the IAL even if the seat is outside Türkiye.
2. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 ("CCP"): For purely domestic arbitrations that lack a foreign element, the arbitration provisions of the CCP (specifically Art. 407-444) apply.

The "foreign element" gateway, as defined in IAL Art. 2, is broad. Its presence is the jurisdictional key to the MTK's flexible provisions. A dispute qualifies as "international" if, for example, the parties have their domiciles in different states, the place of contract performance is in a different state, or the main contract involves the cross-border movement of capital or goods.

A Note for Foreign Investors (Investment Arbitration): This guide focuses on commercial arbitration under the IAL. Foreign investors should be aware that Türkiye is also a party to numerous treaties protecting foreign investment, including the Washington Convention (ICSID) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Türkiye has also signed many bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Disputes arising under these treaties follow a different path (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) and are not governed by the IAL.

The Cornerstone of Enforceability: International Treaties

Türkiye's reliability is anchored by its commitment to key international treaties, primarily the 1958 New York Convention ("Convention"). As a party since 1992, this is Türkiye's most important treaty commitment for arbitration. It provides a robust and pro-enforcement legal framework for awards from other member states to be recognized and enforced in Türkiye through a summary court proceeding (tenfiz davası) that explicitly prohibits a review of the case's merits (and vice-versa). Türkiye maintains two standard reservations: reciprocity (applying it only to awards from other signatory states) and commercial nature (applying it only to disputes deemed "commercial," a term interpreted very broadly).

For the rare case of an award from a non-signatory to the Convention (and also if there is no other bilateral agreement between the states to regulate the enforcement procedure), International Private and Procedural Law of No. 5718's ("IPPL") provisions, specifically IPPL Art. 60-62, govern enforcement, applying very similar principles.

III. The Arbitration Agreement: The Gateway to Arbitration

This agreement is the single most critical document in the entire process; it is the absolute foundation of arbitral jurisdiction. In our practice, we have seen firsthand the immense weight the Turkish courts, especially the Court of Cassation, place on this document. A poorly drafted clause is the number one reason arbitrations fail before they even begin.

This agreement can take the form of an 'arbitration clause' (tahkim şartı), the most common form, which is a simple clause inserted into a main contract before any dispute arises. Or, it can be a 'submission agreement' (tahkim sözleşmesi), a separate agreement drafted after a dispute has already erupted, for the specific purpose of submitting that existing dispute to arbitration.

Core Validity Requirements

1. Form (IAL Art. 4 / CCP Art. 412): The agreement MUST be in writing. The IAL interprets this modernly and flexibly, in line with Art. 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (Option I). The writing requirement, as defined in IAL Art. 4(2), is met if the agreement is a document signed by both parties or contained in an exchange of letters, emails, faxes, or other forms of telecommunication.

A common and practical method is Incorporation by Reference. An arbitration clause in a separate document (like a set of standard terms, e.g., "GAFTA 125") is considered part of the contract, provided the main contract's reference is clear in its intent to make that clause binding.

2. Intent: The parties' intent to arbitrate must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous. The Court of Cassation has established a firm line of precedent on this issue (the "clear and unequivocal will" (açık ve kesin irade) doctrine). It will not enforce "pathological clauses" that are ambiguous or contradictory. For example, a clause stating that disputes "shall be resolved by arbitration or by Istanbul Courts" is consistently held invalid by the Court of Cassation, as it fails to demonstrate an unequivocal waiver of state court jurisdiction.

Core Principles and Common Drafting Pitfalls

• The Arbitration Objection: If a party ignores a valid arbitration clause and files a lawsuit in a Turkish state court, the defendant must raise an "arbitration objection" (tahkim itirazı) as a preliminary objection in their very first response petition, as stipulated in IAL Art. 5, failure to do so in a timely manner is deemed a waiver of the right to arbitrate, and the court will proceed with the case.
• Separability (Severability) (IAL Art. 4(4)): This is a fundamental principle of modern arbitration law, codified in the IAL, just as it is in Art. 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The arbitration clause is legally independent of the main contract it sits in. It acts as a "firewall." This means that even if the main contract is alleged or found to be invalid (e.g., due to fraud or non-performance), the arbitration clause survives to give the tribunal jurisdiction to decide on that very dispute.
• Arbitrability (IAL Art. 1(4) / CCP Art. 408): This principle defines the boundaries of arbitration. Parties can only arbitrate disputes over rights they can freely dispose of. Certain matters are considered non-arbitrable in Türkiye as they involve public policy. The most significant of these are: (i) disputes concerning rights in rem (ayni haklar) over immovable property located in Türkiye, and (ii) disputes over matters not subject to the parties' free will. This second category includes most matters of criminal law, certain family law matters, and disputes relating to bankruptcy and administrative law.
  • Case Law Insight: The Court of Cassation has clarified that the "immovable property" restriction applies only to in rem disputes (e.g., title deed cancellation). A monetary (in personam) dispute related to an immovable property (such as payment under a construction contract or a claim for unpaid rent) is perfectly arbitrable.
• Multi-Party and Multi-Contract Arbitration (Joinder & Consolidation): While the IAL is silent on these complex issues, modern institutional rules provide solutions. This is a significant advantage of choosing an institution like ISTAC. For instance, the ISTAC Rules (Art. 10-11), much like the ICC Rules (Art. 7-10), provide clear mechanisms for:
  • Joinder: Requesting a third party to be joined to the arbitration.
  • Consolidation: Merging two or more separate but related arbitrations into a single proceeding for efficiency.
• Common Drafting Traps & High-Risk Issues:
  • Asymmetric Clauses: The Court of Cassation has, in several high-profile decisions, found clauses that give only one party the right to initiate arbitration (while forcing the other to go to court) to be invalid. Such clauses are often deemed to violate the "principle of equality of arms" (silahların eşitliği ilkesi), which is a core component of procedural public policy.
  • General Transaction Terms (Genel İşlem Koşulları): Under the Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 20-25, if an arbitration clause is "hidden" in non-negotiated, standard terms (especially in contracts with a weaker counterparty), it may be deemed invalid if it is not clear, conspicuous, and fairly presented.
  • Binding Non-Signatories: This is a critical area for multinational corporations. A foreign parent company may ask: "Can I be forced into an arbitration based on a contract signed only by my Turkish subsidiary?" The answer under Turkish law is "rarely."
    • Conservative Approach: Unlike jurisdictions that broadly apply the "Group of Companies" doctrine, Turkish courts, including the Court of Cassation, take a very conservative stance, prioritizing privity of contract (sözleşmelerin nisbiliği).
    • When Can a Non-Signatory Be Bound? A non-signatory (like a parent company, director, or affiliate) can generally only be bound by an arbitration clause in limited, exceptional circumstances that must be clearly proven, such as:
      1. Agency (Temsil): Clear proof that the signatory company was acting as a simple agent for the non-signatory principal.
      2. Contract Transfer: The non-signatory has legally taken over the contract rights and obligations.
      3. Piercing the Corporate Veil (Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması): This requires meeting a very high threshold of proof, such as showing that the signatory company is a mere "alter ego" with no independent existence, or that the corporate structure was used to co-mingle assets and perpetrate fraud.

IV. Arbitral Institutions in Türkiye: A Strategic Choice

While parties are free to conduct an ad-hoc arbitration (self-administering the entire process), leveraging the rules and administrative support of an institution is highly recommended for efficiency and procedural certainty.

• Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC): Established in 2015, ISTAC is Türkiye's premier modern international arbitration institution. Its rules are fully aligned with global best practices (like the ICC or LCIA) and include sophisticated mechanisms such as Fast Track Arbitration Rules and an Emergency Arbitrator mechanism (for urgent relief before the main tribunal is formed).
• Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Centre (ITOTAM): A long-standing and respected institution with deep roots in Istanbul's commercial life, ITOTAM is another strong and traditional choice.
• Others: The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Türkiye (TOBB) also has its own arbitration center, often used for disputes between its members.

V. The Arbitral Tribunal: Selection and Powers

Arbitrator Selection

The principle of party autonomy extends directly to the formation of the tribunal. Parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators (which must be an odd number, typically one or three) and the method of their appointment, as affirmed in IAL Art. 7.

Should the parties fail to agree on a procedure or fail to make an appointment, the IAL Art. 7(B) provides a default mechanism where Turkish courts will provide "light touch" support to make the appointment and ensure the arbitration proceeds.

Impartiality, Independence, and Challenge

Arbitrators are bound by a strict, ongoing duty of impartiality and independence (IAL Art. 7(C)) and must disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts. This standard is identical to the global standard found in all major institutional rules and is famously articulated in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, which are frequently used as a reference by tribunals and courts in Türkiye.

Tribunal's Powers: Competence-Competence

A cornerstone power of the tribunal is the principle of Competence-Competence (IAL Art. 7(H) / CCP Art. 422). This doctrine, which is the direct implementation of UNCITRAL Model Law Art. 16(1) and is also found in ICC Rules Art. 6(5), empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including on any objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement itself, without first referring the matter to a state court. A party wishing to raise a jurisdictional objection must do so in its first-ever submission (e.g., the statement of defense).

VI. The Arbitral Procedure

Once the tribunal is formed, parties have significant control over the procedure. The most critical decisions are:

• Seat of Arbitration (Tahkim Yeri): This is the legal "home" of the arbitration (e.g., Istanbul). This choice is critical, as it determines which country's procedural law (applies and which courts (Turkish courts) have jurisdiction to set aside the award.
• Governing Law (Esasa Uygulanacak Hukuk): The substantive law governing the contract and dispute (e.g., Swiss law, English law, or Turkish law), which the tribunal must apply in accordance with IAL Art. 12(C).
• Procedural Law (Usule Uygulanacak Hukuku): The rules governing the conduct of the arbitration. If the seat is Türkiye, the IAL is the default procedural law, but parties are free to agree on institutional rules (like ISTAC or ICC) or ad-hoc rules.

A Note on Confidentiality: A Common Pitfall

We must stress a critical, and often overlooked, pitfall for foreign parties: confidentiality. Unlike in many jurisdictions, the Turkish IAL itself does not provide a default rule of confidentiality. Therefore, in an ad-hoc arbitration, confidentiality is not guaranteed and must be expressly agreed upon by the parties.

This is a key advantage of institutional arbitration. For example, Article 21 of the ISTAC Arbitration Rules, similar to Article 30 of the LCIA Rules, explicitly imposes a duty of confidentiality on the parties, the arbitrators, and the institution itself, ensuring the proceedings remain private.

A Strategic Guide to Interim Measures (IAL Art. 6)

A powerful feature of Turkish law is the "dual-track" system for interim relief. An arbitration clause does not stop a party from applying to Turkish state courts for interim injunctions (ihtiyati tedbir) or attachments (ihtiyati haciz) before or during the arbitration. This presents a key strategic choice.

• Track 1: Turkish State Courts
  • What: İhtiyati Tedbir (Interim Injunction) & İhtiyati Haciz (Precautionary Attachment).
  • Why We Use It: Speed and surprise. Applications can often be made ex parte (without notifying the other side). This allows a claimant to freeze a bank account or secure an asset before the respondent is aware of the dispute, preventing the dissipation of assets.
  • The Standard: You must provide approximate (prima facie) proof of your claim and demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm or that the right will be impossible to enforce. Courts typically require the applicant to post a security deposit (collateral) to cover potential damages to the respondent.
  • The Clock is Ticking: If an interim measure is granted by a court, the party must initiate the main arbitration proceeding within the time limit set by law (30 days under IAL Art. 10(A)) to prevent the measure from being automatically lifted.
• Track 2: The Arbitral Tribunal
  • What: The arbitral tribunal has the same power to grant interim measures under IAL Art. 6, which mirrors the powers granted in Art. 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
  • Pros: The tribunal, once constituted, will have a much deeper understanding of the case merits and can issue a more tailored and informed measure.
  • Cons: This option is only available after the tribunal is constituted, which can take weeks or months.
  • The "Catch": A tribunal's interim measure is not "self-executing". Furthermore, the IAL explicitly restricts a tribunal's authority to grant interim measures that must be executed by official authorities, such as a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz). That power is reserved for the state courts. For other tribunal-ordered measures, if the respondent refuses to comply, the winning party must apply to the competent Turkish court for an enforcement order (IAL Art. 6(3)). The court may grant this enforcement upon application, but it adds an extra step.
• Track 3: The Emergency Arbitrator
  • What: This is a key feature of modern institutional rules, such as the ISTAC Emergency Arbitrator Rules. This mechanism is a direct parallel to the one found in the ICC Rules (Art. 29 and Appendix V). The ISTAC Emergency Arbitrator Rules, for example, provide for an arbitrator to be appointed within two days and to render a decision within seven days of receiving the file.
  • Our Advice: This solves the timing problem. A party can apply for an emergency arbitrator who is appointed within days, long before the main tribunal is formed. This arbitrator can then issue an urgent interim measure, providing a fast and informed decision. This is often the most strategically sound option in a high-stakes institutional arbitration.

What to Expect: The "Hybrid" International Hearing in Türkiye

A major concern we hear from our foreign clients, particularly those from common law backgrounds (US, UK), is what an arbitration hearing in a "civil law" jurisdiction like Türkiye will look like. Will there be US-style discovery? Will cross-examination be allowed?

The answer is that international arbitrations in Türkiye are run according to international best practices, not domestic Turkish court procedure. This results in a "hybrid" procedure that is efficient and familiar to parties from all legal backgrounds.

• The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence: It is common practice for arbitral tribunals seated in Türkiye to adopt the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. This is typically agreed upon in the first procedural order.
• What This Means for You:
  1. No "Fishing Expeditions": You will not face broad, US-style discovery.
  2. Targeted Document Production: You will, however, engage in a process known as a "Redfern Schedule," where parties make specific, targeted requests for documents or categories of documents that are relevant and material to the outcome of the case.
  3. Witness Statements: Instead of lengthy direct examinations in the hearing, parties submit written, sworn witness statements from their factual and expert witnesses.
  4. Cross-Examination: The hearing is then dedicated almost entirely to the oral cross-examination of the other side's witnesses by opposing counsel, a hallmark of the common law system.

This hybrid approach provides the best of both worlds: the efficiency of the civil law system combined with the truth-seeking rigor of common law cross-examination.

VII. The Arbitral Award: From Deliberation to Finality

The arbitral process culminates in the final award.

• Form & Requirements (IAL Art. 14 / CCP Art. 436): The award must be in writing, be reasoned (state the legal and factual grounds upon which it is based), and include the date, place of arbitration and the possibility to apply for a set-aside.
• Awarding of Costs and Fees (IAL Art. 16):
  • Principle: The tribunal has full authority to allocate costs. The default principle, enshrined in IAL Art. 16(D), is "costs follow the event," meaning the losing party pays the winning party's reasonable costs.
  • What's Recoverable: This includes the tribunal's fees, administrative expenses (e.g., ISTAC's fees), and the parties' "reasonable" legal fees and expenses.
• Correction, Interpretation, and Additional Award (IAL Art. 14(B)): After the award is issued, parties have a 30-day window to request the tribunal to:
  • Correct any computational, clerical, or typographical errors.
  • Provide an interpretation of a specific part of the award.
  • Issue an "additional award" for a claim that was raised during the proceedings but was omitted from the final award. This is a crucial mechanism for fixing errors without resorting to court action.

VIII. After the Award: The Pro-Arbitration Stance in Practice

This is where Türkiye's "pro-arbitration" stance becomes most clear and provides the most value to foreign investors. The judicial approach to both enforcement and challenges is defined by a respect for the arbitral process.

Scenario 1: Enforcing Foreign Awards in Türkiye

Let's assume you have a favorable award from an arbitration seated in London, Paris, or Geneva and need to enforce it against assets in Türkiye.

• Governing Law: The New York Convention (and IPL Art. 60-62).
• The Process: This is a simple, summary proceeding, not a re-trial of the case. The party seeking enforcement submits a petition to the competent Commercial Court of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) along with the documents required by IPPL Art. 61 (which mirrors the New York Convention):
  1. The original or a duly certified copy of the arbitral award (with apostille or other certification).
  2. The original or a duly certified copy of the arbitration agreement (with apostille or other certification).
  3. Certified Turkish translations of these documents.
• The Grounds for Refusal: The Turkish judge cannot review the merits of the case (i.e., they cannot decide that the arbitrator was "wrong" on the facts or the law). Enforcement can only be refused on the very limited, procedural grounds listed in Art. V of the New York Convention (and mirrored in IPPL Art. 62 and UNCITRAL Model Law Art. 36).
• Key Case Law (Public Policy): The most common, and most frequently rejected, defense is that the award violates Turkish "public policy" (kamu düzeni). The Court of Cassation's General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Genel Kurulu) set the definitive standard in its landmark decision (E. 2010/1, K. 2012/1, dated 10.02.2012). This decision confirmed that "public policy" must be interpreted narrowly and is not a backdoor for a review of the merits. A simple misapplication of domestic law, or even a violation of a mandatory Turkish law, is not sufficient to invoke the public policy exception. The violation must be fundamental and "shock the conscience," such as an award validating bribery, fraud, or one that fundamentally violates the right to be heard. This high threshold gives foreign investors great confidence in their ability to enforce their awards.

Scenario 2: Challenging (Setting Aside) Awards Rendered in Türkiye

Now, let's assume your arbitration was seated in Türkiye (an "IAL award"), and the losing party wishes to challenge it.

• Exclusive Remedy (No Appeal): The first and most important rule is that there is no appeal on the merits of an arbitral award. The only recourse is an "action for setting aside" (iptal davası).
• The Process:
  • Competent Court: The action must be filed with the Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) at the seat of arbitration. This court's decision, however, is not necessarily final. The parties may file a further appeal against the Regional Court's decision to the Court of Cassation, which will provide the ultimate and final ruling on the set-aside action.
  • Time Limit: The action must be filed within 30 days of the notification of the award (or its correction/interpretation), as per IAL Art. 15(A). This is a very short and strict deadline.
  • Effect: Crucially, filing a setting-aside action automatically suspends the enforcement of the arbitral award (IAL Art. 15(A)).
• Limited Grounds (IAL Art. 15(A)): The grounds are purely procedural and jurisdictional, as they are a direct adoption of the grounds found in Art. 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. They include:
  • Incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement.
  • A violation of the rules on arbitrator appointment.
  • The tribunal rendering an award outside the statutory time limit.
  • The tribunal unlawfully ruling on its own jurisdiction.
  • The tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction (e.g., deciding on a contract not covered by the clause).
  • A serious procedural violation that affected the award (e.g., a party was not given its fundamental right to be heard).
  • Non-Arbitrability of the dispute.
  • Violation of public policy.
• Key Case Law: It is crucial to understand that an action for setting aside is not an appeal. The Turkish courts are strictly forbidden from conducting a "review on the merits" (révision au fond). The Court of Cassation has a long and consistent line of precedent reinforcing that its review under IAL Art. 15 is limited to the enumerated procedural grounds and does not permit re-evaluating the arbitrator's findings of fact, interpretation of the contract, or application of the law. As long as the tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction and respected due process, the court will not interfere with its decision.
• Waiver (IAL Art. 15(A)): In a significant provision for foreign parties, the IAL allows parties whose domicile or habitual residence is outside of Türkiye to partially or even entirely waive their right to file a setting-aside action. This waiver must be made via an express statement, either in the arbitration agreement itself or in a subsequent written agreement.
• A Note on Partial Awards: It is critical to understand that this 30-day time limit applies not only to the final award but also to any partial awards rendered by the tribunal (e.g., on specific claims). If the aggrieved party fails to challenge a partial award within 30 days of notification, any grounds for setting it aside are considered irrevocably waived and cannot be raised in a later challenge to the final award.

Scenario 3: Enforcing a Domestic International Award in Türkiye

This is a point of common confusion. An award rendered in Türkiye (an IAL award) is not "enforced" using the New York Convention. It is treated as a domestic award.

• Process: The award is already final and binding. However, to execute it (i.e., to use the state's execution office to seize assets), the winning party must obtain an "enforceability certificate" (icra edilebilirlik şerhi) from the competent Commercial Court of First Instance.
• The Link to Setting Aside: The court will only grant this certificate if no setting-aside action has been filed or the Turkish courts has finally rejected the request of setting aside. If a setting-aside action is pending, the award's enforcement is automatically suspended.

IX. Our Concluding View: Türkiye as a Premier Seat

As this guide demonstrates, Türkiye has successfully and deliberately built a legal framework that is not just "arbitration-friendly," but robust, sophisticated, and fully aligned with international standards. The judiciary's consistent respect for party autonomy and the finality of arbitral awards provides the legal certainty that foreign investors demand.

However, navigating this landscape effectively is not just about knowing the law; it's about understanding how it is applied in practice. It's about knowing the Court of Cassations's precise stance on public policy, the strategic value of an ex parte attachment, and how to structure a costs submission to withstand a challenge.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.