Many may recall in the early months of 2021 a story as bizarre as it was disruptive. A 400-metre-long ship, the ‘Ever Given’, had lodged itself firmly in the pits of the Suez Canal, one of two of the world’s most vital shipping corridors. Nothing could get past, and so its dislodgement became the most pressing maritime matter at that point. Nearly two years later, the ship’s owners are still facing legal action. Just this February, for example, Maersk, a large Danish international container shipping company brought proceedings against the ship’s management.

With the Suez Canal spectacle in mind, it is worth considering how disputes can work with so many parties and so many jurisdictions. “Compulsory Consolidation in Arbitral Proceedings: An Infringement on Party Autonomy?” is a chapter in the new book Commercial and Maritime Law in China and Europe.[1] The nearly-300-page text details with efficiency a great number of the most topical dispute-resolution issues within the China – Europe shipping route, the bloodline of one of the world’s largest trading zones. The chapter itself provides much needed consideration of how the consolidation of parallel proceedings by arbitration agreements occurs within the sphere of commercial and maritime law. Crucially, it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the tension between efficiency and party autonomy.

The chapter is co-authored by Dr Lijun Liz Zhao and Catherine Green, who both have a rich history in arbitration. Dr Zhao is a Senior Lecturer in Corporate and Commercial Law at City, University of London. She has written extensively on topics related to global trade, such as the World Trade Organisation, the Belt and Road Initiative and, as is the case here, maritime disputes.

Catherine Green is an arbitrator and Executive Director of the New Zealand International Arbitration Centre. She has previous history in civil litigation working in New Zealand, London, and the Cayman Islands. Catherine has also written and presented extensively on arbitration practice and procedure and on diverse specialist arbitration topics covering international, commercial, construction and family law.

The chapter firmly establishes both the benefits and disadvantages of mandated consolidation. Firstly, there is the cost and efficiency factor. Orders demanding consolidation from the court can easily create a convoluted web of various procedural disputes, stemming from questions around which arbitration rules should apply. On the other hand, mandated consolidation in theory has a better chance of producing consistent outcomes for parties.

Combing through the procedures of various jurisdictions and bodies, the chapter is able to illustrate the variety in which consolidation of proceedings are permitted, managed, and mandated. Fitting in with the book’s overall theme of maritime arbitration and trade between China and Europe, the chapter assesses how it looks between the two, with some jurisdictions being identified as having clearer rules than others.

One of the jurisdictions highlighted for its clarity on the issue is the Netherlands. The chapter notes that unless the parties to proceedings agree otherwise, the District Court in Amsterdam is empowered by the Dutch Arbitration Act 1986 to order the whole or partial consolidation of two or more connected arbitrations. This portion of the chapter then lists the conditions upon which this may occur. Following a thoughtful review of the Netherlands approach, recognition is then made of Hong Kong as having a similar system. It too may order consolidation in the absence of an agreement. Through this direct comparison of these jurisdictions, the chapter offers an insight into how their neighbours may trend legislatively if the process proves itself successful.

For legal professionals involved in maritime arbitration, “Compulsory Consolidation in Arbitral Proceedings: An Infringement on Party Autonomy” is of course vital reading. Beyond that, it is highly recommended for anybody with a curiosity about the legal questions around party autonomy and arbitration. The chapter is topical, and as China re-emerges from its recent fight against Covid-19, it becomes clear that there has never been a more important time to understand its trade.

[1] Shengnan Jia and Lijun Lin Zhao (ed) Commercial and Maritime Law in China and Europe (Informa Law from Routledge, Abingdon, 2023).

About the author

Alexander Lyall is a Research Clerk in The ADR Centre’s Knowledge Management team working with NZIAC. He gained his LLB from the University of Canterbury, and he also holds a BA in political science, media studies, and Te Reo Māori. His writing has previously been published by Radio New Zealand, The Spinoff, The Press, ReSolution and BuildLaw.


Alexander Lyall

Research Clerk

Catherine Green


The growing consensus on recognition and enforcement of foreign investment awards

Written by Alexander Lyall A recent decision from the High Court of Malaysia (the Court), Elisabeth Regina Maria Gabrielle von Pezold and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe,[1] features a case of investors from Switzerland and Germany going to Malaysia as a result of their...

Newcomer arbitrator put under lights in case of apparent bias

Written by Alexander Lyall A recent decision out of the English High Court, H1 & Anor v W & Ors,[1] has captured some of the tell-tale signs that an arbitrator is displaying apparent bias. The decision explains the concept of apparent bias and its importance,...

The Arbitration Job

Written by Kate Holland In Contax Partners Inc BVI v Kuwait Finance House (KFH-Kuwait) & Ors [2024] EWHC 436, the English High Court granted an order enforcing a £70 million Kuwaiti arbitration award against the Kuwait Finance House banking group (KFH). The...

What are the implications of becoming a Contracting State to the New York Convention?

Written by Alexander Lyall A recent decision in the Federal Court of Australia, CCDM Holdings, LLC v Republic of India (No 3),[1] has explored some of the intricacies of the New York Convention. The case provides an interesting analysis of state immunity and whether...

Dipping its ‘cryptoes’ in the water: poor litigation strategy ruins a valid arbitration agreement

Written by Alexander Lyall In Beltran, Julian Moreno and another v Terraform Labs Pte Ltd and others,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed a cryptocurrency exchange’s application to have a dispute resolved by arbitration. As Terraform Labs Pte Ltd (Terraform) found...

Notice of arbitration – make it valid or the award will not stand

Written by Alexander Lyall   A recent decision in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has demonstrated what to avoid when serving a notice to commence arbitration. In G v P,[1] the applicant was unsuccessful in their bid to have an award recognised. The Court...

It’s time – how New Zealand can bring together Latin America and Asia

​Written by Alexander Lyall   Is it time for work to begin again on the Southern Link project? Here, we identify the opportunities which have arisen since the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, and how New Zealand can take advantage of these.  In the early months...

Labelling correspondence “without prejudice” will not always grant the user protection

Written by Sam Dorne When is correspondence labelled “without prejudice” truly to be treated as such?  The High Court of England and Wales has looked at this issue when deciding costs at the end of a claim. The Court set out guidance for when a party can successfully...

London calling – What makes a consumer contract English?

Written by Alexander Lyall Two recent decisions in the English Commercial Court have highlighted the importance of knowing whether your arbitration agreement in fact forms part of a consumer contract. Arbitration is an attractive option to solve disputes, but as these...

Harman obligation released for documents from mining arbitration

By Richard Pidgeon The implied undertaking of confidentiality in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 not to use documents discovered in a proceeding for collateral purposes was released in Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock...
Skip to content