Introduction
An arbitral award is intended to bring a dispute to an end.
That does not mean that every award rendered in Türkiye is immune from judicial control. Turkish arbitration law permits an award to be set aside on defined and limited grounds. Those grounds do not create an ordinary appeal on the merits. They exist to protect the basic legitimacy of the arbitral process, including the validity of the arbitration agreement, proper constitution and jurisdiction of the tribunal, procedural fairness, arbitrability and Turkish public policy.
For a foreign company, the first question after receiving an unfavourable award should therefore not be:
Was the tribunal wrong? The more useful question is:
Does the problem fall within one of the statutory grounds on which a Turkish court is legally permitted to intervene?
That distinction is fundamental.
A court asked to set aside an award does not sit as a second arbitral tribunal. It does not ordinarily reconsider the tribunal's interpretation of the contract, reassess witness credibility or decide whether the tribunal reached the commercially preferable result.
The review is narrow by design.
First Identify Which Arbitration Regime Applies
There are two principal statutory annulment regimes for arbitration seated in Türkiye. Domestic arbitration is governed by Articles 407 to 444 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu or HMK, where the dispute does not contain the foreign element defined by the International Arbitration Law and the seat is in Türkiye.
International arbitration is governed principally by International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu or MTK, where the statutory foreign element exists and the relevant conditions concerning the seat or selection of the Law are satisfied.1
This classification is not merely academic. It affects the deadline for filing the setting-aside action, the effect of the action on enforcement, certain available procedural rights, and the statutory framework the court applies.
The current Ministry of Trade arbitration publication reproduces both regimes and confirms these differences.2
A Foreign-Seated Award Is a Different Category
This distinction is especially important for international clients. If an award was rendered in an arbitration legally seated outside Türkiye, a Turkish court does not ordinarily become the court empowered to set that award aside merely because one party or its assets are located in Türkiye.
Setting aside belongs principally to the supervisory legal system connected with the arbitral seat. If enforcement is later sought in Türkiye, Turkish courts may instead examine recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention and, where applicable, Law No. 5718.
Those are different proceedings. A foreign company should therefore distinguish carefully between setting aside a Türkiye-seated award and resisting recognition or enforcement in Türkiye of a foreign award.
Confusing the two can lead to the wrong procedural strategy.
Not Every Dispute Is Arbitrable
Party autonomy has statutory limits. Under HMK Article 408, disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property and disputes that are not subject to the parties' free disposition are not arbitrable.
The International Arbitration Law adopts the same basic policy. Article 1 expressly excludes disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property situated in Türkiye and disputes not subject to the parties' free disposition from the scope of the Law.3
This distinction must be applied to the actual claim. A commercial contract may relate to Turkish real estate without the dispute necessarily being one about a right in rem.
For example, depending on the precise claim and relief sought, a dispute concerning unpaid construction fees or contractual damages may present a different arbitrability analysis from a dispute asking the tribunal to determine ownership of Turkish land.
The legal question is not: Does this contract involve real estate? It is: What right is the tribunal actually being asked to determine?
The Court Can Examine Arbitrability on Its Own Motion
Arbitrability occupies a special position in both annulment regimes. Under HMK Article 439 and MTK Article 15, the court may consider whether the dispute was arbitrable under Turkish law even where the issue is not presented in the same way as ordinary party-dependent annulment grounds.
The same is true of public policy. This reflects the fact that the parties cannot create arbitral jurisdiction over a category of dispute that Turkish law removes from their power of disposition merely by agreeing to arbitrate it.
An elegantly drafted arbitration clause cannot cure objective non-arbitrability.
The Filing Deadline Is Not the Same Under HMK and MTK
This is one of the most important practical distinctions. Domestic arbitration under HMK Under HMK Article 439(4), the setting-aside action must be filed within one month.
The period begins when the arbitral award, or the relevant correction, interpretation or supplementary award, is notified to the party.4 International arbitration under Law No. 4686 Under MTK Article 15, the setting-aside action must instead be filed within 30 days.
The period begins when the award, or the relevant correction, interpretation or supplementary decision, is notified to the party.5 A professional legal analysis should therefore not use one month and 30 days interchangeably. They are not necessarily identical periods.
These Deadlines Must Be Treated as Critical
The setting-aside period is not a deadline that should be left to the final days while the client decides whether it is commercially disappointed with the result.
Turkish legal scholarship and Yargıtay practice treat annulment deadlines as forfeiture periods whose expiry must be taken seriously.6 From a case-management perspective, the award should therefore be reviewed immediately after formal notification.
For a foreign company, internal reporting can consume surprising amounts of time. The award may first go to the Turkish subsidiary, then headquarters, then regional legal, then external arbitration counsel and finally Turkish annulment counsel.
That internal sequence does not stop the statutory clock.
The first task should be to establish the exact notification date.
Correction or Supplementation Can Affect the Starting Point
Both regimes expressly address correction, interpretation and supplementation of awards. Where the relevant statutory procedure produces a correction, interpretation or supplementary award, the annulment period is calculated from notification of that decision in accordance with the applicable statute.7
This makes it important to distinguish a request that merely asks the tribunal to reconsider the merits, a legally recognised correction or interpretation request, and a supplementary award concerning a matter properly submitted but omitted from the original decision.
Not every post-award correspondence postpones the annulment deadline. Counsel should identify the applicable statutory procedure rather than assume that sending a letter to the tribunal stops time.
Filing an Annulment Action Has Different Enforcement Consequences
The second major difference between domestic and international arbitration concerns enforcement. HMK arbitration Under HMK Article 439(4), filing a setting-aside action does not automatically suspend enforcement of the award.
A party may request a stay, but the statute permits the court to condition suspension on security corresponding to the money or property awarded.8
International arbitration under MTK The position is different under International Arbitration Law Article 15.
Filing the setting-aside action automatically suspends enforcement of the award.9 For a successful claimant and an unsuccessful respondent, this difference can materially affect leverage immediately after the award.
The Statutory Grounds Are Limited
A party cannot obtain annulment simply by showing that another tribunal might have reached a different conclusion. The statutory grounds concern matters such as incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, defects in appointment or constitution of the tribunal, failure to render the award within the applicable arbitral period, incorrect jurisdictional rulings, decisions outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or failure to decide matters properly submitted, material procedural departures, failure to respect equality of the parties or the right to be heard, non-arbitrability, and conflict with public policy.10
The details of the HMK and MTK formulations are not word-for-word identical, so counsel should work from the statute governing the particular arbitration.
What they share is a central principle: setting aside is exceptional judicial control, not an appeal on the merits.
Some Grounds Depend on Proof by the Challenging Party
Under the International Arbitration Law, several grounds require the party requesting annulment to prove the relevant defect.
The court separately examines arbitrability and public policy.
That allocation matters strategically. A claimant should identify exactly which statutory ground it invokes and the evidence capable of proving it.
Statements such as the tribunal misunderstood the contract, the damages were too high, or the tribunal should have believed our expert do not become annulment grounds simply because they are placed under a heading called public policy.
Public Policy Must Remain Narrow
Public policy is one of the most frequently invoked and most frequently misunderstood annulment grounds.
The concept is intentionally exceptional. If every error of Turkish law were treated as a public-policy violation, the prohibition on merits review would become meaningless.
Turkish jurisprudence has therefore repeatedly emphasised that public policy does not provide a disguised route for examining whether the tribunal applied substantive law correctly.
A legally incorrect award and a public-policy-invalid award are not necessarily the same thing.
Yargıtay: Ordinary Procedural Complaints Do Not Automatically Become Public Policy
Yargıtay 15th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/2474, K. 2019/3640, 26 September 2019
This is an important authority concerning the limits of public-policy review.
The dispute concerned annulment of an arbitral award arising from a construction contract. The complaints included matters such as the absence of a court-style expert examination, the failure to obtain a certified Turkish translation of a foreign-language agreement and the absence of formal terms of reference.
Yargıtay rejected the approach that these matters, without more, justified annulment on public-policy grounds. The decision emphasised the high threshold applicable to public policy and the need to distinguish fundamental legal values from ordinary procedural or legal disagreement.11
The practical lesson is important. A party should not take every complaint it unsuccessfully raised before the tribunal and relabel it public policy in the annulment petition.
Yargıtay: Excessive Contractual Penalty Is Not an Invitation to Rehear the Merits
Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/3492, K. 2022/5025, 20 June 2022
This case concerned an ISTAC award and an attempt to set it aside. Among the arguments raised was that the contractual penalty awarded by the arbitrator was excessive and should have been reduced.
Yargıtay accepted the lower court's approach that reviewing whether the contractual penalty was excessive under the label of public policy would amount to reviewing the merits of the arbitral award.
That is not the function of the annulment court.12 The decision is particularly valuable for commercial clients because the argument is tempting.
A party may strongly believe that the tribunal awarded too much.
That does not itself transform quantum review into public-policy review.
The Conflicting Awards Jurisprudence Requires Care
The procedural history concerning allegedly inconsistent arbitral determinations is more nuanced than a simple categorical rule.
Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/2105, K. 2022/4906, 15 June 2022
In this decision, the Chamber initially considered that inconsistent determinations arising from related arbitral proceedings could engage public policy because contradictory outcomes may threaten legal certainty.
It therefore reversed the Regional Court of Appeal's refusal to annul the award. But that was not the end of the case.
The Regional Court of Appeal resisted the reversal.
Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/7424, K. 2023/1983, 3 April 2023
Upon renewed review, Yargıtay found the resistance decision appropriate and upheld the refusal to set aside the award. The later decision is important because it prevents the 2022 judgment from being presented as a simple universal rule that any inconsistent arbitral findings automatically violate Turkish public policy.13
For practitioners, the safer conclusion is that the relationship between conflicting arbitral determinations and public policy is fact-sensitive and cannot be reduced to a categorical formula.
Annulment Is Not the Same as Appeal
This distinction should be made explicit to foreign clients. An appeal usually asks a higher court to examine whether the lower decision was legally or factually correct.
A setting-aside proceeding asks a different question: Was the arbitral process or award affected by one of the limited defects identified by the arbitration statute?
This means a party may lose an arbitration, believe the tribunal was substantively wrong and still have no viable annulment case.
Experienced counsel should be willing to say so. Starting an annulment action merely because the client is unhappy with the result can add cost without creating a realistic path to reversal.
A Foreign Party May Be Able to Waive Annulment Rights Under MTK
International clients should also understand a feature specific to the International Arbitration Law. Under MTK Article 15, parties whose domicile or habitual residence is outside Türkiye may, through an express provision in the arbitration agreement or a later written agreement, waive the right to bring a setting-aside action completely or waive specified annulment grounds.14
This should not be inserted casually into an arbitration clause. A waiver can materially reduce post-award judicial protection.
Foreign parties should understand exactly what they are giving up before agreeing to it.
The Arbitration Clause Should Be Reviewed Before the Dispute
Many annulment problems begin years before the award.
An ambiguous arbitration clause can produce jurisdiction disputes. A badly selected institution can create procedural uncertainty.
An unclear seat provision can complicate identification of the supervisory court. A contract may also attempt to arbitrate a matter that is not legally arbitrable.
This is why post-award strategy begins with pre-dispute drafting. An arbitration clause should be designed with the possibility of a real challenge and real enforcement in mind.
What Should a Foreign Client Look for in Turkish Annulment Counsel?
A foreign company should look for counsel who understands both arbitration and Turkish court procedure.
Conducting the arbitration and challenging the award are related but distinct disciplines. The lawyer handling the setting-aside action should be able to determine whether HMK or MTK applies, the exact notification date, whether the deadline is one month or 30 days, whether filing suspends enforcement, which statutory annulment ground is genuinely available, whether the complaint is actually an impermissible merits argument, whether arbitrability or public policy requires separate analysis, whether a correction or supplementary award affects timing, and how the annulment case interacts with enforcement strategy.
The client should also ask who will actually draft and argue the case. A senior arbitration lawyer presented during the engagement process may not necessarily be the person preparing the annulment petition.
For significant awards, that distinction matters. Professional registration of Turkish counsel should also be verified through the official Türkiye Barolar Birliği Baro Levhası / Avukat Arama system.
The strongest advice may sometimes be: There is no responsible annulment case here. That can save a client considerable time and money.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the deadline always one month?
No. For domestic arbitration governed by HMK Article 439, the period is one month. For international arbitration governed by MTK Article 15, the period is 30 days.15
When does the period start?
It generally starts upon notification of the award or, where applicable, the relevant correction, interpretation or supplementary decision under the governing statute.
Does filing the setting-aside action stop enforcement?
It depends on the regime. Under HMK, filing does not automatically suspend enforcement. A stay may be requested subject to the statutory security mechanism. Under MTK, filing the annulment action automatically suspends enforcement.16
Can a Turkish court set aside an award seated in another country?
Ordinarily, setting aside is a function of the supervisory legal system connected with the seat. If enforcement of a foreign award is sought in Türkiye, Turkish courts may instead examine recognition and enforcement under the applicable enforcement framework.
Can a court annul an award because the arbitrator applied Turkish law incorrectly?
Not merely for that reason. An error of law does not automatically fall within the statutory annulment grounds. The court cannot generally conduct a merits review under the label of public policy.
Can a dispute concerning Turkish real estate be arbitrated?
It depends on the right in dispute. A dispute directly concerning rights in rem over Turkish immovable property is not arbitrable under the relevant Turkish statutory framework. A contractual dispute connected with a real estate project may require a different analysis depending on the actual claim and relief sought.17
Does failure to appoint an expert automatically justify annulment?
No. Turkish case law demonstrates that failure to obtain expert evidence is not, by itself, necessarily an annulment ground. The specific statutory ground and effect on the proceedings must be established.18
Is an excessive contractual penalty a public-policy issue?
Not automatically. Yargıtay has held that using public policy to reconsider whether an arbitral contractual penalty was excessive would amount to impermissible merits review.19
Do conflicting arbitral awards automatically violate public policy?
No categorical rule should be stated that broadly. The 2022 and 2023 Yargıtay decisions concerning related arbitral proceedings show that this issue is highly dependent on the procedural and factual circumstances.20
Can foreign parties waive their right to seek annulment?
Under MTK Article 15, qualifying parties whose domicile or habitual residence is outside Türkiye may make a written waiver within the conditions prescribed by the statute.21
When should Turkish annulment counsel be contacted?
Immediately after receipt of the award. The first tasks should be confirming the governing regime, notification date, deadline and effect on enforcement.
Conclusion
Setting aside an arbitral award in Türkiye is not an ordinary appeal. It is a limited judicial remedy designed to protect the legitimacy of arbitration without allowing state courts to rehear the merits of the dispute. The first task is classification. Domestic arbitration under HMK and international arbitration under Law No. 4686 have different deadlines and different enforcement consequences. The second task is discipline. A party must distinguish a genuine statutory defect from dissatisfaction with the tribunal's factual or legal conclusions. The third is timing. Under HMK the deadline is one month. Under MTK it is 30 days. Neither period should be treated casually.
Recent Yargıtay jurisprudence reinforces the central principle that public policy must not become an open-ended merits review. Procedural dissatisfaction, disagreement with damages or criticism of the tribunal's legal reasoning will not necessarily justify annulment. At the same time, arbitrability and truly fundamental public-policy concerns remain meaningful judicial controls. For a foreign company, the practical approach should therefore be immediate and focused: identify the governing statute, confirm the notification date, analyse only the statutory grounds, assess the enforcement consequences, and decide quickly whether a responsible challenge actually exists.
A good post-award strategy is not measured by how quickly an annulment petition can be filed. It is measured by whether filing that petition is legally justified and commercially rational.
Legal Notice
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable legislation, regulations, administrative and judicial practice, documentation requirements, filing, notification or service dates and other deadlines where relevant, and the facts of the particular matter should be checked before any action is taken.
Bibliography
Legislation and Treaties
Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Official Gazette No. 27836, 4 February 2011. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6100.pdf.
International Arbitration Law No. 4686. Official Gazette No. 24453, 5 July 2001. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf.
Judicial Decisions
Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/3492, K. 2022/5025, 20.06.2022. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/. Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/2105, K. 2022/4906, 15.06.2022, followed by Yargıtay 11th Civil
Chamber, E. 2022/7424, K. 2023/1983, 03.04.2023. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
Yargıtay 15th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/2474, K. 2019/3640, 26.09.2019. See Nuray Ekşi, Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2020. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/.
Institutional and Official Materials
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
Books and Academic Commentary
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026.
Süha Tanrıver, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu'na Göre Cereyan Eden Tahkim Bağlamında Hakem Kararının İptali Sebebi Olarak Kamu Düzenine Aykırılık, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2025.
Footnotes
1 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 407 and 408; International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 1. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026.
2 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 407 and 408; International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 1. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026.
3 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 407 and 408; International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 1. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026.
4 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
5 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
6 Süha Tanrıver, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu'na Göre Cereyan Eden Tahkim Bağlamında Hakem Kararının İptali Sebebi Olarak Kamu Düzenine Aykırılık, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2025.
7 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
8 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
9 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
10 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
11 Yargıtay 15th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/2474, K. 2019/3640, 26.09.2019. See Nuray Ekşi, Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2020.
12 Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/3492, K. 2022/5025, 20.06.2022, concerning an ISTAC award and rejection of merits review of an allegedly excessive contractual penalty under the public-policy ground. Decision identifiable through the official Yargıtay Karar Arama system.
13 Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/2105, K. 2022/4906, 15.06.2022, followed by Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/7424, K. 2023/1983, 03.04.2023, concerning related arbitral proceedings, allegedly inconsistent findings and public policy. The later judgment upheld the Regional Court of Appeal's resistance decision and refusal to annul the award.
14 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
15 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
16 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Article 439, concerning annulment grounds, the one-month period, enforcement during annulment proceedings and appellate review. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
17 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 407 and 408; International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 1. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, Tahkime İlişkin Temel Kavramlar, Düzenlemeler ve Güncel Gelişmeler, Updated and Expanded 3rd Edition, 2026.
18 Yargıtay 15th Civil Chamber, E. 2019/2474, K. 2019/3640, 26.09.2019. See Nuray Ekşi, Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2020.
19 Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2021/3492, K. 2022/5025, 20.06.2022, concerning an ISTAC award and rejection of merits review of an allegedly excessive contractual penalty under the public-policy ground. Decision identifiable through the official Yargıtay Karar Arama system.
20 Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/2105, K. 2022/4906, 15.06.2022, followed by Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/7424, K. 2023/1983, 03.04.2023, concerning related arbitral proceedings, allegedly inconsistent findings and public policy. The later judgment upheld the Regional Court of Appeal's resistance decision and refusal to annul the award.
21 International Arbitration Law No. 4686, Article 15, concerning annulment grounds, 30-day period, automatic suspension of enforcement and waiver of annulment rights by qualifying foreign-domiciled parties. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2026 arbitration legislation compilation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
