{"id":152560,"date":"2026-11-04T10:39:14","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T10:39:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=152560"},"modified":"2026-11-04T12:28:48","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T12:28:48","slug":"bahamas-international-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/bahamas-international-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Bahamas: International Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-152560","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-international-arbitration","jurisdictions-bahamas"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">McKinney, Bancroft &amp; Hughes<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/08\/MBH-Full-Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">McKinney, Bancroft &amp; Hughes<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/08\/MBH-Full-Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of International Arbitration laws and regulations applicable in Bahamas<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What legislation applies to arbitration in your country? Are there any mandatory laws?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Arbitration Act 2009 (as amended) (the \u201c<strong>AA<\/strong>\u201d), The Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009 (the \u201c<strong>FAA<\/strong>\u201d) and The International Commercial Arbitration Act 2023 (the \u201c<strong>ICAA<\/strong>\u201d) govern the legislative regime applicable to arbitration in The Bahamas.<\/p>\n<p>There are no mandatory laws requiring arbitration. Arbitration is consensual and based on the agreement between the parties and is not a mandatory default. Notwithstanding, the Bahamian Court has taken a fairly \u2018pro-arbitration\u2019 approach and arbitration only becomes effectively \u201cmandatory\u201d when parties have a valid arbitration clause, which the Court will generally enforce.<\/p>\n<p>The AA is modelled closely on the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the \u201c<strong>English Act<\/strong>\u201d) but also incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law regime on interim measures and preliminary orders. The AA governs domestic arbitrations and trust arbitrations. The AA was amended by The Arbitration Act (Amendment) 2023 (the \u201c<strong>2023 Amendments<\/strong>\u201d) which introduced detailed provisions on confidentiality and more substantially by The Arbitration Act (Amendment) 2025 (the \u201c<strong>2025 Amendments<\/strong>\u201d) which expanded the framework for trust arbitration, restated the grounds of challenge, and made court proceedings arising out of arbitrations private by default.<\/p>\n<p>While there are no mandatory laws requiring arbitration, the AA contains mandatory provisions similar to the English Act. That is to say, section 5 of the AA (as amended) sets out the mandatory provisions which include, among other things, the stay of legal proceedings, the Court\u2019s power to remove an arbitrator, the immunity of arbitrators, the general duties of the tribunal and parties, etc.<\/p>\n<p>The ICAA incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law (as amended in 2006) for international commercial arbitrations seated in The Bahamas, and expressly does not apply to trust arbitrations.<\/p>\n<p>The FAA gives effect to the New York Convention.<\/p>\n<p>Court proceedings related arbitrations are governed by Part 60 of The Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2022 (the \u201c<strong>CPR<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country a signatory to the New York Convention? Are there any reservations to the general obligations of the Convention?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. The Bahamas became a signatory to the New York Convention on 20<sup>th<\/sup> December 2006, and it entered into force on 20<sup>th<\/sup> March 2007. The New York Convention was incorporated domestically by virtue of the FAA which gave full effect to the Convention. The Bahamas does not have any reservations to the general obligations of the Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What other arbitration-related treaties and conventions is your country a party to?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bahamas signed and ratified the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the \u201c<strong>ICSID Convention<\/strong>\u201d) on 19<sup>th<\/sup> October 1995, and it entered into force for The Bahamas on 18<sup>th<\/sup> November 1995.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamas is also a Member State of the Caribbean Community (\u201c<strong>CARICOM<\/strong>\u201d) having joined on 4<sup>th<\/sup> July 1983 making it a party to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (but not party to the CARICOM Single Market Economy (\u201c<strong>CSME<\/strong>\u201d)), which provides for arbitration as one of the methods of dispute resolution under the Treaty.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamas is also a party to the CARICOM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement 2008, which also contains investment provisions and a State-to-State dispute settlement mechanism that includes arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>To the best of our knowledge, The Bahamas is not yet party to any bilateral investment treaties that are currently in force.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the law governing international arbitration in your country based on the UNCITRAL Model Law? Are there significant differences between the two? Are there any impending plans to reform the arbitration laws in your country? Has your jurisdiction adopted, or is it considering adopting, the amendments of 6 July 2026 regarding electronic awards and communications?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>International arbitrations seated in The Bahamas are governed by the ICAA with the exception of trust arbitrations. Trust arbitrations, although they may have some international components, are governed by the AA.<\/p>\n<p>There are no significant differences between the ICAA and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Under Article 6 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (which is the equivalent of section 8 of the ICAA), the ICAA appoints those functions detailed therein to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, acting through its Secretary-General. The ICAA also gives the appointing authority power to extend time limits, to impose a default duty of confidentiality on the parties, and expressly excludes trust arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>At the moment, there is not any publicly available information relating to any impending plans to further reform arbitration legislation in The Bahamas, but there has been draft legislation prepared for arbitration-adjacent legislation for domestic and international commercial mediation.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamas has not adopted the amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law made on 6<sup>th<\/sup> July 2026. Moreover, we are not aware nor is there any publicly available information that this is something being considered by the Government of The Bahamas at this time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What arbitral institutions (if any) exist in your country? When were their rules last amended? Are any amendments being considered?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are no established arbitral institutions in The Bahamas with any significant caseload, based on publicly available information. There are small entities such as the International and Western Hemisphere Arbitration, Adjudication and Mediation Centre (\u201c<strong>IWHAAM<\/strong>\u201d) and the Mid-Atlantic Caribbean Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute (\u201c<strong>MACADRI<\/strong>\u201d) which exist, but there is no publicly available information available on the extent of their use or of their rules.<\/p>\n<p>The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (\u201c<strong>Ciarb<\/strong>\u201d) has an active Bahamas Branch that promotes training and accreditation of arbitrators, adjudicators and mediators.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a specialist arbitration court in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. There is not a specialist arbitration court in The Bahamas. Court applications related to arbitrations are heard by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas at first instance, and where applicable can be appealed to either the Court of Appeal and then the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is The Bahamas\u2019 apex court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the validity requirements for an arbitration agreement under the laws of your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Section 6 of the AA provides that an arbitration agreement must be in writing. That is to say, an arbitration agreement is in writing if it is recorded in any form, even if orally, by conduct or by other means, including electronic communication.<\/p>\n<p>Section 9 of the ICAA provides that an arbitration agreement can be part of a contract, or a separate agreement and must also be in writing. The writing requirement is satisfied if its content is recorded in any form; by an electronic communication where the information is accessible so as to be usable for subsequent references; or by exchange of an agreement and the other does not deny it.<\/p>\n<p>Otherwise, the ordinary common law requirements for a valid contract apply:- (i) agreement, (ii) capacity, and (iii) certainty. It also must be that the subject matter must also be capable of settlement by arbitration. Matters such as criminal liability, certain family and status matters, and insolvency matters affecting third-party rights will not be arbitrable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are arbitration clauses considered separable from the main contract?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Section 7 of the AA provides that, unless otherwise agreed, an arbitration agreement that forms part of another agreement is not to be regarded as invalid, non-existent or ineffective because that other agreement is invalid, did not come into existence or has become ineffective, and an arbitration agreement is to be treated as a distinct agreement.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, section 18(2) of the ICAA (based on Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law) has the same effect, that is to say, an arbitration agreement is to be treated independently \u2013 separately.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts of your country apply a validation principle under which an arbitration agreement should be considered valid and enforceable if it would be so considered under at least one of the national laws potentially applicable to it?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Neither the AA nor the ICAA has any express statutory provision on the validation principle. However, Bahamian Courts apply the common law, thus legal principles established by English authority would be treated as highly persuasive to a Bahamian Court. For instance, the Bahamian Court would likely follow the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of <u>Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb<\/u> [2020] UKSC 38, where the Court clarified how it would determine the proper governing law of an arbitration agreement when it is separate from the main contract and the seat of arbitration. Rather, in relation to the validation principle, where the law that would otherwise govern the arbitration agreement would render it invalid or ineffective, there is a strong presumption that the parties intended a law that would uphold it.<\/p>\n<p>Sections 48 and 50 of the ICAA (based on Articles 34 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law), like the FAA, reflect the framework under the New York Convention which looks first to the law chosen by the parties and, failing that, to the law of the seat when assessing the validity of the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are asymmetric arbitration clauses \u2013 for instance, where one party has the right to choose between arbitration or litigation while the other party does not have this option \u2013 valid in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The AA nor the ICAA refer to asymmetric arbitration clauses specifically, but whether such clauses are valid in The Bahamas could be a matter for interpretation by the Bahamian Court. As at the time of writing, there are no reported Bahamian decisions on asymmetric arbitration clauses. However, the Bahamian Court is likely to follow English authority, which to our knowledge, has consistently upheld such clauses as a legitimate exercise of party autonomy. Thus, although it could be a matter for interpretation by the Bahamian Court, provided the clause is clearly drafted, we would expect it to be valid and enforceable in The Bahamas, subject to any argument of unconscionability or unfairness (in a consumer or employment context).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an arbitration agreement? Are there any recent court decisions on these issues?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a general rule, only parties to an arbitration agreement are bound to it. However, as is the case with the English common law, under Bahamian common law, non-signatories may be bound through (i) agency, (ii) assignment or novation, (iii) succession (including by operation of law), and (iv) the law of trusts \u2013 parties in relation to a trust meaning a settlor, trustee, beneficiary or power holder of or under a trust including any former trustee, beneficiary or power holder and any person claiming that he is or should be a trustee, beneficiary or power holder.<\/p>\n<p>It is doubtful that the Bahamian Court would recognize the \u201cgroup of companies\u201d doctrine and would follow the English approach.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of recent court decisions on these issues, under the 2025 Amendments, trust provisions requiring arbitration operate as arbitration agreements binding the trustees and beneficiaries (see Section 6A). The arbitral tribunal may also appoint representatives for minors, unborn and unascertained beneficiaries and persons under a disability, and any compromise on their behalf requires the tribunal\u2019s approval (see Section 49A). Essentially, this allows an award to bind persons who could never have signed an agreement to arbitrate.<\/p>\n<p>In the long running <u>Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> litigation, in the December 2023 decision, the Bahamian Supreme Court (Klein J) confirmed that disputes involving a settlor\u2019s claims against the trustee of a Bahamian trust were arbitrable under the legislative regime, and upheld the arbitral awards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any recent court decisions and\/or legislative reform in your country concerning the choice of law applicable to an arbitration agreement where no such law has been specified by the Parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To date, there has not been any legislative or judicial developments in The Bahamas concerning the choice of law applicable to an arbitration agreement where no such law has been specified by the Parties. Unlike the United Kingdom\u2019s Arbitration Act 2025, neither the AA nor the ICAA provide for any statutory choice of law rule for the arbitration agreement. It is highly likely that the Bahamian Court would take the common-law approach and follow the Court\u2019s decision in <u>Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb<\/u> [2020] UKSC 38.<\/p>\n<p>While local practitioners may consider it appropriate to now amend the AA to align with the recent UK Arbitration Act 2025, as at the time of writing, there is no draft legislation in circulation proposing such reform.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is the law applicable to the substance determined? Is there a specific set of choice of law rules in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Pursuant to section 68 of the AA, the arbitral tribunal must decide the dispute in accordance with the law chosen by the parties, or, if the parties agree, in accordance with such other considerations as they agree or as the tribunal determines. If there is no choice or agreement, the arbitral tribunal applies the law determined by the conflict of laws rules it considers applicable.<\/p>\n<p>Under section 42 of the ICAA (see Article 28 of the Model Law), the arbitral tribunal applies the rules of law chosen by the parties; a choice of the law of a State refers to its substantive law, not its conflict of laws rules. Failing a choice, the arbitral tribunal applies the law determined by the conflict of laws rules it considers applicable. The arbitral tribunal may decide <em>ex aequo et bono<\/em> or as <em>amiable compositeur<\/em> only if expressly authorised, and must in all cases take account of the terms of the contract and applicable trade usages.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamas has no codified set of choice of law rules. Common-law rules, derived from English law before the Rome Convention and Rome I Regulation, apply. Under those rules, the proper law of a contract is the law expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties or, absent a choice, the law with which the contract has its closest and most real connection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your country, are there any particular requirements for and\/or restrictions in the appointment of arbitrators?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are no nationality, residence or professional requirements for arbitrators under either the AA or the ICAA. Section 13(1) of the ICAA provides expressly that no person is precluded by reason of nationality from acting as an arbitrator unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The parties are free to agree the number of arbitrators and the appointment procedure. Absent agreement, the AA provides for a sole arbitrator and the ICAA for an arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators.<\/p>\n<p>Any qualifications agreed by the parties must be respected. Under the AA, the Court must have regard to any and all agreed qualifications when making an appointment (see Section 30). Under the ICAA, an arbitrator may be challenged for lacking the qualifications agreed by the parties (see Section 14). All arbitrators must be, and remain, impartial and independent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the local courts intervene in the selection of arbitrators? If so, how?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the Bahamian Court can intervene in the selection of arbitrators, but only in limited circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Under the AA, the Court has a supporting role where the agreed appointment procedure fails. In circumstances where the parties have failed to agree what would happen if the appointment procedure failed, any party may apply to the Court under section 29(2) of the AA for the Court to give directions as to the making of any necessary appointments, etc. In so doing, the Court must have regard to any agreed qualifications (see Section 30). The Court may also fill a vacancy as the provisions of sections 27 and 29 apply in relation to filling a vacancy as in relation to an original appointment (see Section 38(3)). Separately, section 28 of the AA allows a party, where the other party fails to appoint its arbitrator (in a two or three arbitrator procedure) to treat its own appointee as a sole arbitrator, subject to the Court\u2019s power to have such appointment set aside (on the application of the party in default).<\/p>\n<p>Under the ICAA, the Bahamian Court does not intervene in the selection of arbitrators. Where the parties\u2019 procedure fails, the default appointing authority is the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (see Sections 8 and 13).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the appointment of an arbitrator be challenged? What are the grounds for such a challenge? What is the procedure for such a challenge?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Under the AA, the parties may revoke an arbitrator\u2019s authority by agreement (see Section 34). A party may apply to the Court under section 35 to remove an arbitrator on the following grounds:- (i) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator\u2019s impartiality, (ii) the arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required by the arbitration agreement, (iii) the arbitrator is physically or mentally incapable of conducting the proceedings, or there are justifiable doubts as to their capacity to do so, and (iv) the arbitrator has refused or failed properly to conduct the proceedings or to use all reasonable dispatch, and substantial injustice has been or will be caused to the applicant.<\/p>\n<p>If the arbitration is being conducted under an arbitral institution, then any institutional recourse available must first be exhausted. The right to remove an arbitrator under section 35 cannot be excluded, but the right to object may be lost if not raised promptly (see Section 95). Further, while such an application is pending, the arbitral tribunal may continue proceedings. In one of the <u>Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> (Winder CJ, 18<sup>th<\/sup> November 2025), the Bahamian Court refused to stay a long running trust arbitration pending a removal application made under section 35. The Court held that the removal claim lacked sufficient merit, that the Court would not interfere absent evidence of actual or apparent bias, and that the arbitral tribunal\u2019s reasoned refusal to recuse itself was fair.<\/p>\n<p>Under sections 14 and 15 of the ICAA (based on Articles 12 and 13 of the Model Law), an arbitrator may be challenged\u00a0 only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, or if they lack the agreed qualifications. Absent an agreed procedure, a challenge must be made to the tribunal within 15 days of the challenging party becoming aware of the relevant circumstances. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may, within 30 days, request that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (as appointing authority) to decide it, and that decision is final.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent developments concerning the duty of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, including the duty of disclosure?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The standard of impartiality in The Bahamas is the common-law test of whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (see <u>Porter v Magill <\/u>[2001] UKHL 67). The Bahamian Court is likely to follow <u>Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd<\/u> [2020] UKSC 48, which recognised a legal duty on arbitrators to disclose facts and circumstances that would or might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. The United Kingdom Arbitration Act 2025 has now codified that duty. Section 14(2) of the ICAA imposes an express and continuing duty of disclosure from the time of appointment and throughout the proceedings. The AA does not contain an express disclosure provision, but the <u>Halliburton <\/u>duty applies as a matter of common law.<\/p>\n<p>The most recent Bahamian decision on this point is <u>Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> (18 November 2025), in which the Supreme Court declined to halt an arbitration on the basis of an unparticularised allegation of apparent bias (see question 16 above).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are arbitrators immune from liability?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Under section 40 of the AA, an arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their functions as arbitrator unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith. The immunity extends to an arbitrator\u2019s employees and agents. Arbitral institutions and appointing authorities enjoy a corresponding immunity (see Section 96). The immunity does not affect any liability an arbitrator may incur by resigning.<\/p>\n<p>The ICAA does not contain an express immunity provision. Arbitrators in ICAA proceedings would therefore rely on the common-law immunity recognised in English authority and on any contractual exclusion in the applicable institutional rules.<\/p>\n<p>The confidentiality regime introduced by the 2023 Amendments means that an arbitrator who breaches the duty of confidentiality may be exposed to liability and may forfeit fees. (see Section 19A(2)).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the principle of competence-competence recognized in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Section 41 of the AA provides that, unless otherwise agreed, the tribunal may rule on its own substantive jurisdiction, including whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, whether the tribunal is properly constituted and what matters have been submitted to arbitration. Objections must be raised no later than the first step taken to contest the merits (see Section 42). The Court may determine a preliminary point of jurisdiction only with the agreement of all parties, or with the permission of the arbitral tribunal where the Court is satisfied that the determination is likely to produce substantial savings in costs, the application was made without delay and there is good reason for the court to decide the matter (see Section 43). A tribunal\u2019s award on jurisdiction may be challenged under section 89 under the AA.<\/p>\n<p>Section 18 of the ICAA follows Article 16 of the Model Law. Where the tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a preliminary question, a party may request review of that ruling within 30 days, although under the ICAA that request is made to the Permanent Court of Arbitration rather than a court, and the tribunal may continue the arbitration in the meantime.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamian courts have respected the principle in practice. In <u>Lyford Holdings NV v Vernes Holding Ltd<\/u> (2018\/CLE\/gen\/1050, 22 October 2018), Charles J left questions about the validity of the notice of arbitration to the arbitrator. In the <u>Volpi<\/u> litigation, the Supreme Court confirmed that competence-competence applies in trust arbitrations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the approach of local courts towards a party commencing litigation in apparent breach of an arbitration agreement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bahamian Court is strongly supportive of arbitration agreements. Under section 9 of the AA, a party against whom legal proceedings are brought in respect of a matter that is to be referred to arbitration may apply for a stay, provided it does so before taking any step in the proceedings to answer the substantive claim. The Court must grant a stay unless it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The stay is mandatory and cannot be excluded by agreement. The 2025 Amendments extended section 9 to court proceedings concerning \u201cadministration questions\u201d under a trust, allowed any affected party to seek a stay, and empowered the Court to order a stay of its own motion.<\/p>\n<p>Under section 10 of the ICAA (based on Article 8 of the Model Law), the Court must refer the parties to arbitration if a party so requests no later than when submitting its first statement on the substance of the dispute, unless it finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.<\/p>\n<p>A party that commences litigation in breach of an arbitration agreement is likely to be ordered to pay the costs of the stay application and, following English practice, may be ordered to pay them on an indemnity basis. The Bahamian Court may also restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement by anti-suit injunction (see question 23 below).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What happens when a respondent fails to participate in the arbitration? Can the local courts compel participation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The tribunal may proceed in the respondent\u2019s absence. Under section 52 of the AA, unless otherwise agreed, if a party fails without sufficient cause to attend a hearing or to make written submissions after due notice, the tribunal may continue the proceedings in that party\u2019s absence and make an award on the evidence before it. The tribunal may also make peremptory orders and, if these are not complied with, draw adverse inferences, proceed to an award or make appropriate costs orders.<\/p>\n<p>Under section 37 of the ICAA (based on Article 25 of the Model Law), a respondent\u2019s failure to submit a defence is not treated as an admission of the claimant\u2019s allegations; the tribunal simply continues the proceedings and makes an award on the evidence before it. In either case, the tribunal must still satisfy itself that the claim is proved and that the defaulting party was given proper notice and a fair opportunity to participate.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamian Court cannot compel a party to participate in an arbitration as such. They can, however, enforce a tribunal\u2019s peremptory order (see Section 53 of the AA), secure the attendance of witnesses (see Section 54 of the AA) and assist in the taking of evidence (see Section 39 of the ICAA). An award made against a non-participating respondent is enforceable in the usual way, subject to that party\u2019s right to raise a lack of jurisdiction (see Section 94 of the AA).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can third parties voluntarily join arbitration proceedings? If all parties agree to the intervention, is the tribunal bound by this agreement? If all parties do not agree to the intervention, can the tribunal allow for it?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Neither the AA nor the ICAA contains a general provision allowing third parties to join or intervene in arbitral proceedings. Joinder is therefore a matter of consent. If all parties and the third party agree to the joinder, the tribunal will ordinarily give effect to that agreement. However, as the tribunal\u2019s mandate is contractual, the arbitrators are not obliged to accept an expanded mandate on terms to which they have not agreed; in practice, they will generally accept it. If not all parties agree, the tribunal has no power to allow joinder unless such a power has been conferred by the applicable institutional rules (for example, Article 7 of the ICC Rules or Article 22.1(x) of the LCIA Rules), to which the parties will be taken to have agreed. Similarly, under section 46 of the AA, the tribunal may order consolidation or concurrent hearings only if the parties agree to confer that power on it.<\/p>\n<p>In trust arbitrations, the tribunal may join and bind beneficiaries and other interested persons, including through appointed representatives (sections 6A and 49A AA, as amended in 2025).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim measures are available? Will local courts issue interim measures pending the constitution of the tribunal? Are anti-suit and\/or anti-arbitration injunctions available and enforceable in your country? What is the approach of local courts in your jurisdiction to anti-arbitration injunctions issued in breach of arbitration agreements?  Have there been any recent decisions on this point?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Insofar as it relates to tribunal ordered measures, under the AA, the tribunal has general powers, unless otherwise agreed, to order security for costs, give directions for the preservation of property and evidence, and make provisional awards if the parties agree (see Sections 49 and 50). Part X of the AA (see Sections 57 to 67) and sections 19 to 28 of the ICAA incorporate the 2006 Model Law regime. The tribunal may order interim measures to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process, preserve assets from which an award may be satisfied, or preserve evidence. It may also make <em>ex parte<\/em> preliminary orders, which expire after 20 days. Interim measures are recognised as binding and are enforceable by the Court on application, irrespective of the country in which they were issued, subject to limited grounds for refusal (see Sections 65 and 66 of the AA; sections 27 and 28 of the ICAA).<\/p>\n<p>With reference to Court-ordered measures, under section 55 of the AA, the Court has the same powers in support of arbitral proceedings as it has in court proceedings. These include preserving evidence, inspecting property, and granting interim injunctions and receivers. In cases of urgency, it may make such orders as it thinks necessary to preserve evidence or assets, including before the tribunal is constituted; otherwise, the application requires the tribunal\u2019s permission or the agreement of the other parties.<\/p>\n<p>In <u>Lyford Holdings NV v Vernes Holding Ltd<\/u> (2018\/CLE\/gen\/1050, 22 October 2018), Charles J granted an interim mandatory injunction under section 55(3) of the AA before the tribunal was constituted. Following <u>Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd<\/u> [2005] EWCA Civ 618, she held that a contractual right was an \u201casset\u201d capable of preservation. By contrast, in <u>Matteo Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> (7 August 2019), Winder J (as he then was) held that section 55 of the AA does not have extraterritorial effect and that the Court could not grant leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction for free-standing relief in support of arbitral proceedings conducted abroad.<\/p>\n<p>Section 29 of the ICAA (based on Article 17J of the Model Law) confirms that the Court may issue interim measures in relation to international arbitrations irrespective of whether the seat is in The Bahamas.<\/p>\n<p>With anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under section 21 of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 53, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, to grant injunctions wherever it is just and convenient to do so. Following <u>AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC<\/u> [2013] UKSC 35, anti-suit injunctions are available to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, even where no arbitration has been commenced. Anti-arbitration injunctions are available only in exceptional circumstances, where the arbitration is vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable. There is no reported Bahamian decision on a foreign anti-arbitration injunction issued in breach of an arbitration agreement. We would expect a Bahamian Court to decline to give effect to such an injunction and to support the arbitration, consistent with the pro-arbitration approach described above.<\/p>\n<p>To our knowledge, there have been no recent decisions on this point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there particular rules governing evidentiary matters in arbitration? Will the local courts in your jurisdiction play any role in the obtaining of evidence? Can local courts compel witnesses to participate in arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under section 45 of the AA, subject to the parties\u2019 agreement, the tribunal decides all procedural and evidential matters. These include whether to apply strict rules of evidence as to admissibility, relevance or weight, whether and to what extent there should be document disclosure, and whether to hold oral hearings. Section 31 of the ICAA confers equivalent powers. Tribunals and Counsel in The Bahamas commonly adopt or draw guidance from the <u>IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration<\/u>.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamian Court plays a supporting role. Under section 54 of the AA, a party may, with the tribunal\u2019s permission or the agreement of the other parties, use the court\u2019s procedures to secure the attendance of a witness in The Bahamas to give oral testimony or produce documents, provided the witness could be compelled to do so in court proceedings. Under section 55 of the AA, the Court may order the taking of evidence of witnesses, including by deposition or letters of request for evidence abroad. Section 39 of the ICAA (based on Article 27 of the Model Law) permits the tribunal, or a party with the tribunal\u2019s approval, to request the Court\u2019s assistance in taking evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What ethical codes and other professional standards, if any, apply to counsel and arbitrators conducting proceedings in your country? Do these codes and professional standards apply only to counsel and arbitrators having the nationality of your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Counsel admitted to the Bahamas Bar are subject to the Legal Profession Act, Chapter 64, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and the Code of Professional Conduct made under it, which apply whether they appear in Court or in an arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>Under section 47 of the AA, a party may be represented in the proceedings by a counsel &amp; attorney or any other person of its choice, so foreign counsel may appear in Bahamian-seated arbitrations without being admitted in The Bahamas. It is important to make the distinction that while foreign counsel may appear in Bahamian-seated arbitrations, they do not have right of audience in the Bahamian Court, unless specially admitted. Foreign counsel remain subject to the rules of their home jurisdiction, and the ethical code of conduct to which Bahamian attorneys are subject, does not apply to them.<\/p>\n<p>There is no statutory code of conduct for arbitrators. Arbitrators are bound by the statutory duty under section 44 of the AA to act fairly and impartially, giving each party a reasonable opportunity to put its case, and by the equivalent duties in the ICAA. Members of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, including its Bahamas Branch, are bound by the <u>CIArb Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct<\/u> regardless of nationality. The <u>IBA Guidelines on Party Representation<\/u> and the <u>IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest<\/u> are frequently referred to by local practitioners.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your country, are there any rules with respect to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. As part of its legislative framework for arbitration, The Bahamas has one of the more comprehensive statutory confidentiality regimes in the region. Part V of the AA (introduced by the 2023 Amendments and amended by the 2025 Amendments) provides that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>arbitral proceedings must be heard in private (see Section 17);<\/li>\n<li>subject to section 19 and to any express provision to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, every arbitration agreement is deemed to provide that the parties and the tribunal must not disclose confidential information (see section 18);<\/li>\n<li>disclosure is permitted in limited circumstances, including where required by law, with the consent of all parties, to professional advisers, or to protect or pursue a legal right (see Section 19);<\/li>\n<li>the tribunal (see Section 20) and the court (see Section 21) may allow or prohibit disclosure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Following the 2025 Amendments, Court proceedings under the AA are conducted in private by default unless a party objects. The Court then weighs factors including the open justice principle, the public interest, the welfare of minors, privacy and public safety (see Section 22, as replaced; former Sections 23 to 25 were repealed).<\/p>\n<p>Section 41 of the ICAA provides that, unless otherwise agreed, no party may publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to the arbitral proceedings or the award. The exceptions are disclosure to protect or pursue a legal right or to enforce or challenge an award, disclosure required by law or by a regulatory body, and disclosure to professional advisers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are the IBA guidelines on conflicts of interest and other similar soft law sources viewed by courts and tribunals in your jurisdiction? Are they frequently applied? Have any developments under the 2024 IBA Guidelines, including the expanded Orange List, the treatment of social media conduct, or due diligence obligations on parties, and the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators been addressed by courts and tribunals in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The <u>IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration<\/u> are regarded by Bahamian practitioners and tribunals as persuasive soft law. They are frequently referred to in disclosure and challenge applications, although they are not binding on the Bahamian Court. English authority, which the Bahamian Court follow, treats the Guidelines as a helpful but non-determinative reference point (see <u>W Ltd v M Sdn Bhd<\/u> [2016] EWHC 422 (Comm); <u>Halliburton v Chubb<\/u> [2020] UKSC 48).<\/p>\n<p>We are not aware of any Bahamian decision or published tribunal decision that has considered the 2024 revisions to the <u>IBA Guidelines<\/u> (including the expanded Orange List, the treatment of social media relationships, or the parties\u2019 due diligence obligations) or the <u>UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Dispute Resolution<\/u>. As the Code of Conduct was developed for investor-State disputes, it has limited direct application to the commercial and trust arbitrations that make up most Bahamian-seated cases.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are the costs of arbitration proceedings estimated and allocated? Can pre- and post-award interest be included in the principal claim and costs incurred?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Part XII of the AA (see Sections 81 to 87), the parties may agree how costs are to be allocated. However, an agreement that a party is to pay the whole or part of the costs in any event is valid only if made after the dispute has arisen (see Section 82). Absent agreement, the tribunal must award costs on the general principle that costs follow the event, except where this is not appropriate in the circumstances (see Section 83).<\/p>\n<p>Recoverable costs are determined by the tribunal or, failing that, by the Court on a reasonable basis (see Sections 85 and 86), and the tribunal may cap recoverable costs in advance (see Section 87).<\/p>\n<p>Following the 2025 Amendments, trustees may recover their arbitration costs from the trust fund, subject to limits (see Section 83). The ICAA contains no general costs provision, so costs are dealt with under the applicable institutional or UNCITRAL rules and the tribunal\u2019s discretion.<\/p>\n<p>Costs are estimated by reference to the tribunal\u2019s fees (hourly or <em>ad valorem<\/em> under institutional scales), institutional charges, and the parties\u2019 legal and expert fees. Tribunals frequently call for costs budgets or schedules.<\/p>\n<p>Interest is available. Under section 71 of the AA, unless otherwise agreed, the tribunal may award simple or compound interest, at such rates and with such rests as it considers meet the justice of the case. This may be awarded on the principal sum from any date up to the date of the award, on sums paid before the award, and on the award and costs from the date of the award until payment. Once an award is registered as a judgment, post-judgment interest also runs at the statutory judgment rate, which according to the Civil Procedure (Rate of Interest) Rules, 2008, is the prime rate of the Central Bank of The Bahamas, plus 2% per annum, i.e., 6.25%.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are applications for security for costs viewed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under section 49 of the AA, unless otherwise agreed, the tribunal may order a claimant to provide security for the costs of the arbitration. Following the English model, that power may not be exercised on the ground only that the claimant is an individual ordinarily resident outside The Bahamas or a company incorporated or managed outside The Bahamas. Tribunals generally apply the principles developed by the English courts and in some instances consider how the Bahamian Court treats security for costs under the CPR, with reference to Bahamian decisions. The key question is whether there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay the respondent\u2019s costs if ordered to do so, and whether an order would stifle a genuine claim. The Court itself does not order security for the costs of the arbitration. It may, however, order security for the costs of an application to challenge or appeal an award, and may require any money payable under the award to be brought into court (see Section 92).<\/p>\n<p>Under the ICAA and most institutional rules, security for costs is treated as an interim measure (see Section 19). Applications are neither routinely granted nor viewed with suspicion; each turns on its facts. The availability of third-party funding (see question 34 below) has increased the focus on security applications.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What legal requirements are there in your country for the recognition and enforcement of an award? Is there a requirement that the award be reasoned, i.e. substantiated and motivated?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>With respect to domestic awards and other awards made under the AA, according to section 88 of the AA, an award may, with the leave of the Court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court, and judgment may be entered in the terms of the award. Leave will be refused if the person against whom enforcement is sought shows that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction (subject to the loss of the right to object).<\/p>\n<p>Under the FAA, a Convention award is enforceable in the same way as a domestic award, either by action or with the leave of the Court. The applicant must produce:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy;<\/li>\n<li>the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy; and<\/li>\n<li>where either document is not in English, a certified translation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Enforcement may be refused only on the grounds set out in Article V of the Convention, as reproduced in the FAA (see Section 6 of the FAA). Enforcement applications are made under Part 60 of the CPR, with rule 60.4 dealing specifically with applications to enforce foreign awards. Awards under the ICAA, whatever their place of origin, are recognised and enforced under sections 49 and 50 (based on Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law).<\/p>\n<p>An award made under the AA must contain reasons unless it is an agreed award or the parties have agreed to dispense with reasons (section 74). An ICAA award must likewise state the reasons on which it is based unless the parties have agreed otherwise or it is an award on agreed terms (section 45). For foreign awards, the absence of reasons is not itself a ground for refusing enforcement, provided that the award is valid under the law of the seat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the estimated timeframe for the recognition and enforcement of an award (domestic and international)? Can a party bring a motion for the recognition and enforcement of an award on an ex parte basis? Would the standard of review be different for domestic and international awards?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Timing depends on whether enforcement is contested. An uncontested application that complies with the formal requirements can generally be dealt with within a few weeks to three months. Where the award debtor resists enforcement, for example on public policy or natural justice grounds, the process (including any appeal to the Court of Appeal) may take 12 to 24 months or longer. There is no material difference in timing between domestic and foreign awards.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, enforcement applications were brought by originating summons, supported by affidavit, and heard <em>inter partes<\/em> (see, for example, <u>Therapy Beach Club Inc v RAV Bahamas Ltd<\/u> (2018) 1 BHS J No 46).<\/p>\n<p>According to the relevant provisions of the CPR, an award cannot be enforced on an <em>ex parte<\/em> basis. An application under CPR rule 60.1(2) for the enforcement of a domestic arbitral award must be made by a fixed date claim form with a statement of claim and subject to the discretion of the Chief Justice to direct such application to be heard by the Registrar, shall be returnable before a judge in chambers. At the same time, an applicant may also apply for leave and subject to the Court granting leave, may apply for an order or orders in relation to the enforcement of the award (see CPR rule 60.1(4)). The fixed date claim form should also include a statement of claim or affidavit with all such particulars and evidence as may be necessary in relation to such order or orders for enforcement for which he is applying (see CPR rule 60.1(5)).<\/p>\n<p>An application under CPR rule 60.4 for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award also requires such application to be made by fixed date claim form, supported by an affidavit exhibiting (i) the duly authenticated original award or duly certified copy of it, (ii) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it, and (iii) and a translation of the award or agreement certified by an official or sworn translator or by diplomatic or consular agent, if the award is in a language other than English.<\/p>\n<p>The standard of review differs in its source rather than its intensity. For foreign awards, the Court\u2019s review is confined to the exhaustive grounds in Article V of the New York Convention (as reproduced in the FAA at section 6), and the Court will not review the merits. For domestic awards, the grounds for refusing leave under section 88 are limited to lack of substantive jurisdiction, but the award debtor may also have challenged the award at the seat under sections 89 to 91.<\/p>\n<p>In <u>In the Matter of BHP International Markets Ltd<\/u> (2016\/COM\/bnk\/0038), Winder J (as he then was) held that a foreign award could found a statutory demand in winding-up proceedings without first being enforced in The Bahamas. The judge observed that the FAA was intended to facilitate, not restrict, the beneficiary of a foreign award.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can arbitration awards be appealed or challenged in local courts? What are the grounds and procedure in this regard? Is it possible for parties to waive any rights of appeal or challenge to an award by agreement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. The AA provides three routes of challenge, as restated by the 2025 Amendments:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Section 89: a challenge on the basis that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction. This is mandatory.<\/li>\n<li>Section 90: a challenge for serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award that has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant. The irregularities are listed exhaustively and include failure to comply with the general duty of the tribunal, exceeding powers, failure to deal with all issues put to it, uncertainty or ambiguity in the award, fraud and conflict with public policy. This is also mandatory.<\/li>\n<li>Section 91: an appeal on a question of law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A section 91 appeal requires the agreement of all parties or the leave of the Court. Leave may be granted only where the question substantially affects the rights of a party, the tribunal was asked to determine it, and the decision is obviously wrong or is of general public importance and at least open to serious doubt.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the 2025 Amendments, the Supreme Court held in <u>Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> (December 2023) that an appeal on a point of law was available only with the consent of all parties.<\/p>\n<p>Under section 92 of the AA, an application or appeal must be brought within 28 days of the award (or of the outcome of any arbitral appeal or review process), and any available arbitral process of appeal or review, and any correction under section 79, must first be exhausted.<\/p>\n<p>The leading authority on section 90 is the Privy Council\u2019s decision in <u>RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club Inc<\/u> [2021] UKPC 8. The Board held that undue formalism should not be required in framing a section 90 challenge. It found that the arbitrator\u2019s failure to deal with an issue concerning the lease renewal, and the application of an undisclosed one-third deduction to damages without giving the parties an opportunity to address it, amounted to serious irregularities causing substantial injustice. The award was remitted to the arbitrator.<\/p>\n<p>Under the ICAA, an application to set aside under section 48 (based on Article 34 of the Model Law) is the exclusive recourse against an award. The grounds are limited to incapacity, invalidity of the agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present one\u2019s case, excess of jurisdiction, irregular composition or procedure, non-arbitrability, and conflict with the public policy of The Bahamas. The application must be made within three months of receipt of the award, and there is no appeal on the merits.<\/p>\n<p>The parties may exclude the right to appeal on a point of law under section 91 of the AA, and an agreement to dispense with reasons is treated as such an exclusion. The challenges under sections 89 and 90 of the AA, and the setting-aside grounds under section 48 of the ICAA, are mandatory and cannot be waived by agreement in advance. However, the right to object may be lost by failing to raise it promptly (see Section 95 AA).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an award? To what extent might a third party challenge the recognition of an award?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>An award is final and binding on the parties and on any persons claiming through or under them (see Section 80 AA). It does not generally bind third parties, but can do so where a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement on one of the bases discussed in question 11. That includes, in trust arbitrations, beneficiaries bound under section 6A of the AA and minors, unborn and unascertained persons and persons under a disability who were represented by a person appointed under section 49A of the AA, where the tribunal has approved any compromise on their behalf.<\/p>\n<p>A person alleged to be a party but who takes no part in the proceedings may question whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, whether the tribunal is properly constituted or what matters have been submitted to arbitration, by court proceedings for a declaration or injunction. Such a person may also challenge the award under sections 89 and 90 of the AA as if they were a party (see section 94 of the AA, as extended by the 2025 Amendments).<\/p>\n<p>At the enforcement stage, a party against whom enforcement is sought may resist recognition on the basis that it was never party to a valid arbitration agreement (see Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention). A true stranger to the award has no standing to challenge its recognition, but may protect its own interests in any related execution proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any rules \/ court decisions that regulate or prohibit third party funding of arbitration proceedings \u2013 for instance, where funding by an entity not involved in the dispute in return for a share of the eventual award may be barred \u2013 in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no statute regulating third-party funding in The Bahamas. The common-law doctrines of maintenance and champerty have not been abolished by statute, and funding arrangements must therefore be structured to avoid giving the funder undue control of the proceedings or an improper share of the proceeds. That said, the Bahamian Court has followed the modern English approach, which treats commercial funding that does not undermine the integrity of the process as acceptable. It is also generally accepted that the doctrines apply with less force to arbitration, which is a private process.<\/p>\n<p>In <u>Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd<\/u> (Supreme Court, Klein J, 29 October 2024), the applicants sought leave to appeal and to set aside costs orders on the basis that the opposing party\u2019s funding by a commercial funder was champertous. The Court refused the application. It found insufficient evidence of the terms of the funding arrangement to establish illegality, and held that even a funding agreement contrary to public policy would not, by itself, render the funded proceedings an abuse. Neither the AA nor the ICAA requires disclosure of funding, although tribunals may order disclosure, particularly in the context of security for costs and conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is emergency arbitrator relief available and recognized in your country? Are decisions made by emergency arbitrators readily enforceable?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Neither the AA nor the ICAA makes express provision for emergency arbitrators, although section 2 of the ICAA defines an arbitral tribunal as including an emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the rules of arbitration agreed to or adopted by the parties including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organisation.<\/p>\n<p>That being said, parties are, however, free to adopt institutional rules that provide for emergency relief (for example, the ICC, ICDR and LCIA rules). If so, emergency decisions in the form of interim measures would be recognised and enforceable under section 27 of the ICAA (based on Article 17H of the Model Law), irrespective of where they were made.<\/p>\n<p>Under the AA, the enforceability of an emergency arbitrator\u2019s decision is less clear. Such a decision could be enforced as an interim measure under sections 65 and 66 of the AA, or through a peremptory order enforced under section 53 of the AA. Alternatively, a party can seek urgent relief from the Court under section 55 of the AA. There has been no reported Bahamian decision on the enforcement of emergency arbitrator decisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there arbitral laws or arbitration institutional rules in your country providing simplified or expedited procedures for claims under a certain value? Are they often used?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. Neither the AA nor the ICAA provides simplified or expedited procedures for low-value claims, and to our knowledge, none of the small local entities operating as institutions have expedited rules that are regularly used. Parties who want an expedited procedure typically adopt the expedited provisions of the international institutions (such as the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions or the ICDR International Expedited Procedures), which apply automatically below specified thresholds. Parties may also, under section 45 of the AA, agree a streamlined procedure, such as a documents-only arbitration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>We are not aware of any reported Bahamian decision considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction, or the enforcement of an award that has been set aside at the seat. Under the FAA (reflecting Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention), the Bahamian Court has a discretion to refuse enforcement of an award that has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority at the seat, and may adjourn enforcement proceedings (and order security) where a setting-aside application is pending (see also section 50 of the ICAA). In exercising that discretion, the Bahamian Court would be expected to follow English authority (for example, <u>Maximov v OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat<\/u> [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm)).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the issue of corruption? What standard do local courts apply for proving corruption? Which party bears the burden of proving corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>We are not aware of any reported Bahamian decision considering corruption in an arbitral context. Allegations of fraud and corruption would be relevant to challenges for serious irregularity (see Section 90 AA, which includes awards obtained by fraud or contrary to public policy), setting aside under section 48 of the ICAA, and refusal of enforcement on public policy grounds under the FAA. Domestic anti-corruption law includes the Prevention of Bribery Act, Chapter 88, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2018, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.<\/p>\n<p>A Bahamian Court applies the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to allegations of corruption and fraud. Consistent with <u>Re B (Children)<\/u> [2008] UKHL 35, cogent evidence is needed to prove a serious allegation, although the standard itself does not change. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging corruption. The Bahamian Court would likely treat recent English authority as persuasive, particularly <u>Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process &amp; Industrial Developments Ltd<\/u> [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm), where an award procured by bribery and misuse of privileged documents was set aside.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country withdrawn from, or announced its intention to withdraw from, the Energy Charter Treaty?  What is the status of the sunset clause in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bahamas is not a party to the Energy Charter Treat and as such any questions on the status of the sunset clause in The Bahamas would not be applicable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions or legislative developments in your country with respect to intra-European investor-State arbitration, the Energy Charter Treaty, or the enforcement of intra-EU? Are there any pending decisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. As a non-EU State that is not a party to the Energy Charter Treaty and has no bilateral investment treaty with an EU Member State in force, The Bahamas has not seen any court decisions or legislative developments concerning intra-EU investor-State arbitration or the Energy Charter Treaty, and we are not aware of any pending decisions. Were an intra-EU award to be presented for enforcement in The Bahamas, it would be dealt with under the ICSID Convention (if an ICSID award) or the FAA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have arbitral institutions in your country implemented reforms towards greater use of technology and a more cost-effective conduct of arbitrations? Have there been any recent developments regarding virtual hearings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, none of the small local arbitral bodies have published significant (or any) reforms in this area. However, remote and hybrid hearings are now routine in Bahamian-seated arbitrations, and tribunals have broad powers under section 45 of the AA (and section 31 of the ICAA) to determine the form of hearings.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamian Court has also embraced technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Chief Justice\u2019s Notices (including Notice No. 13 of 22 November 2020) allowed judges to hear matters remotely or on the papers. This has continued today and a majority of hearings are heard remotely or on the papers.<\/p>\n<p>The CPR, which came into force on 1 March 2023, and the Supreme Court (Electronic Filing) Rules 2023 (implemented in 2024) have introduced electronic filing, electronic service and remote hearings, and an e-filing platform for the Court of Appeal is being introduced.<\/p>\n<p>There has been no reported Bahamian decision holding that a party has a right to a physical hearing in arbitration. The Bahamas\u2019 National Report on this point is featured in the 2021 ICCA Hearing Project, \u2018<em>Does a Right to Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration<\/em>\u2019 addresses this more fully. However, the prevailing view is that a virtual hearing is consistent with the tribunal\u2019s duty to give each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case, provided that the procedure is fair.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent judicial and\/or legislative developments in your jurisdiction with regard to disputes involving ESG issues such as climate change, sustainability, social responsibility and\/or human rights?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There have been no reported arbitration-specific judicial decisions on ESG issues. The Bahamas is, however, highly exposed to climate change and has been active in this area. The Climate Change and Carbon Market Initiatives Act 2022, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas created a framework for carbon credit trading and nature-based climate initiatives. The Bahamas also participated in the advisory proceedings on climate change before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2024) and the International Court of Justice (2025).<\/p>\n<p>In the arbitration context, the partial final award of 27<sup>th<\/sup> February 2026 in the arbitration between the <u>Government of The Bahamas v Grand Bahama Port Authority<\/u>, concerning the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, is notable. The tribunal dismissed the Government\u2019s claim of approximately BSD 357 million and most of the Port Authority\u2019s counterclaims, but found against the Government in relation to its failure to approve environmental bye-laws proposed by the Port Authority, with quantum and costs reserved to a later phase. The award illustrates how environmental regulation can feature in public-law and concession disputes resolved by arbitration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have any international economic sanctions regimes been implemented (either independently, or based on EU law) in your jurisdiction recently? Have there been any recent decisions in your country considering the impact of sanctions on international arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bahamas implements United Nations Security Council sanctions under the International Obligations (Economic and Ancillary Measures) Act, Chapter 16, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and associated orders, and under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2018, Statute Laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (targeted financial sanctions).<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamas is not subject to EU law. Following the invasion of Ukraine, the International Obligations (Economic and Ancillary Measures) (United States of America) (Unilateral Sanctions) Directions 2022 were made. On 12<sup>th<\/sup> March 2022, the Central Bank of The Bahamas and the other financial services regulators directed supervised institutions not to do business with parties sanctioned by the United States and other identified western countries, and to report their exposures.<\/p>\n<p>We are not aware of any Bahamian decision considering the impact of sanctions on arbitration proceedings, such as the arbitrability of sanctions-related disputes, payment of arbitrators\u2019 fees, or enforcement of awards in favour of sanctioned parties. Such questions would be likely to arise under the public policy exceptions in section 90 of the AA, section 48 of the ICAA and the FAA, and tribunals seated in The Bahamas would need to take the applicable directions into account when dealing with payments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country enacted any regulation and\/or implemented any rules, guidlines or regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI), generative AI or large language models in the context of dispute resolution?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no legislation in The Bahamas regulating the use of artificial intelligence (\u201c<strong>AI<\/strong>\u201d) \u00a0in dispute resolution. However, the Office of the Judiciary (the Chief Justice) issued <u>Practice Direction No. 3 of 2025 (5 November 2025)<\/u> on the use of generative AI in proceedings before the Court. The Practice Direction requires, among other things:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>verification of all authorities, with written submissions to include a statement that the citations and authorities have been verified;<\/li>\n<li>disclosure of generative AI use by a certificate of use;<\/li>\n<li>the Court\u2019s prior approval for AI-assisted expert reports;<\/li>\n<li>that confidential information must not be entered into unsecured open AI tools.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Non-compliance may lead to submissions being struck out, adverse costs, contempt proceedings or referral to the Bar\u2019s Ethics Committee. The aforesaid Practice Direction does not apply directly to arbitrations, but it is likely to influence practice in Court proceedings supporting arbitration. Its confidentiality safeguards are also relevant given the statutory confidentiality duties in Part V of the AA and section 41 of the ICAA.<\/p>\n<p>In arbitration itself, tribunals may address the use of AI in procedural orders, and practitioners increasingly refer to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators\u2019 Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) and the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Centre Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (2024).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any specific legal, institutional, or procedural frameworks in your jurisdiction governing the arbitration of digital asset or blockchain-related disputes?  Have there been any court decisions in your jurisdiction concerning the validity or enforceability of arbitration agreements incorporated into smart contracts or digital asset terms?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bahamas has a sophisticated digital asset regulatory framework under the Digital Assets and Registered Exchanges Act 2024 (\u201c<strong>DARE 2024<\/strong>\u201d), administered by the Securities Commission of The Bahamas, which replaced the 2020 iteration of the legislation. However, there is no specific legal, institutional or procedural framework for the arbitration of digital asset or blockchain-related disputes. Such disputes are arbitrable under the general law, and the AA\u2019s and ICAA\u2019s writing requirements, which accommodate agreements recorded electronically, are broad enough to cover arbitration agreements concluded online or embedded in platform terms.<\/p>\n<p>The Bahamian Court has experience of digital asset disputes, most notably through the FTX Digital Markets Ltd liquidation. However, we are not aware of any Bahamian decision on the validity or enforceability of arbitration agreements incorporated into smart contracts or digital asset terms of use. In the absence of local authority, the Bahamian Court would likely consider English authority on the incorporation of online terms and on the treatment of digital assets as property.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">10603<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/152560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}