International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

While international arbitration is not yet especially prevalent as a method of resolving disputes in The Bahamas, it is well-positioned to grow to become more prevalent. In June 2023, The Bahamas enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) by virtue of the International Commercial Arbitration Act 2023 (“ICAA 2023”). Besides the adoption of the “gold standard” in international commercial arbitration, The Bahamas’ Arbitration Act 2009 (modelled after the English Arbitration Act 1996) can be described as “Model Law compliant”. In addition to the aforesaid legislation, The Bahamas has also incorporated the 1958 New York Convention into domestic law by virtue of the Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009. This allows for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Domestic parties do resort to the use of international commercial arbitration where there is provision for it by arbitral clause in contracts. While litigation is still largely favoured, it is evident from recent jurisprudence, such as the Gabriele Volpi v Delanson Services Limited and RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club Incorporated cases as well as the arbitration between the Government of The Bahamas and the Grand Bahama Port Authority, that arbitration is increasingly being used to resolve high-stakes disputes. International arbitration has mostly been used by domestic parties in contracts as a method of dispute resolution (as seen with the arbitration between the Government of The Bahamas and the Grand Bahama Port Authority) and where The Bahamas is the seat of the arbitration (as seen with the RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club Incorporated case).

The construction industry and the financial services industry have experienced significant international arbitration activity in recent years. The construction industry has benefited tremendously from the Construction Contractors Act 2016, which provides for dispute resolution through mediation and arbitration before resorting to litigation, and for dispute resolution agreements to be included in a written contract between the client and the contractor in the event that a dispute arises regarding the performance of construction work. The financial services industry has seen growth in the niche area of trusts. The Trustee (Amendment) Act 2011 first introduced legislative provisions to support the arbitration of trust disputes. These legislative provisions have since been strengthened by the 2023 and 2025 amendments to the Arbitration Act 2009, which not only transposed trust arbitration provisions from the Trustee (Amendment) Act 2011 but also expanded defined terms and certain powers to protect the arbitrability of trust disputes. In addition to the construction and financial services industries, the maritime and shipping industry has seen an increase in international arbitration activity, with most related contracts (eg, employment) including arbitral clauses.

At present, international arbitrations are usually conducted on an ad hoc basis in The Bahamas (typically under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), and when conducted under arbitral institutions, those arbitrations are usually conducted under the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). The Bahamas has fledgling arbitral institutions: (i) the International and Western Hemisphere Arbitration, Adjudication and Mediation Centre (IWHAAM); and (ii) the Mid-Atlantic Caribbean Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute (MACADRI). Neither IWHAAM nor MACADRI has been utilised with any frequency for international arbitrations in The Bahamas. There have been no arbitral institutions established in The Bahamas in the last 12 months as IWHAAM and MACADRI have both been in operation for several years.

The Supreme Court of The Bahamas has general supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration-related applications and can hear disputes relating to international arbitrations if they relate to trust arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2009 and its amendments and in relation to domestic arbitrations. If the decision of the Supreme Court is appealed, then it will be heard by the Court of Appeal. The final appellate court of The Bahamas is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, as seen in RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club Incorporated [2021] UKPC 8, a Privy Council decision emanating from The Bahamas. There are no separate specialist commercial or arbitration courts. Under the Arbitration Act 2009, applications concerning stays of proceedings, interim relief, enforcement and challenges to awards are heard by the Supreme Court with reference to the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2022, which include rules for arbitration-related applications. Under the ICAA 2023, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is designated to perform certain supervisory and assistance functions such as arbitrator appointments where parties cannot agree, etc.

The ICAA 2023 governs international commercial arbitration in The Bahamas, while aspects of trust arbitration (international in nature) are governed by the Arbitration Act 2009 and its amendments. The ICAA 2023 closely mirrors the Model Law, while the Arbitration Act 2009 is materially similar to the English Arbitration Act 1996 and often described as “Model Law compliant”. Bahamian national legislation based on the Model Law – the ICAA 2023 – diverges to the extent that it explicitly assigns roles to the Permanent Court of Arbitration for assistance and supervision, incorporates confidentiality provisions, introduces a specific regime for preliminary orders, and excludes trust arbitration because it is provided for under the Arbitration Act 2009 and its amendments. Recognition and enforcement of foreign awards is separately addressed under the Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009, which gives effect to the 1958 New York Convention.

There have been significant changes by virtue of the 2025 amendments to the Arbitration Act 2009. Section 2 introduces new definitions including of “administration question” (relief or questions relating to trust administration, execution or variation), “arbitration agreement”, “dispute”, “person under a disability” (minors or patients), “protector”, “minor”, “patient” and “trust subsection establishes that matters typically agreed between parties shall, in trust arbitrations, be determined by the written terms of the trust. Section 6A creates a new provision whereby written trust terms providing for arbitration shall have effect as an arbitration agreement between parties to the trust. Section 49A grants tribunals power to appoint representatives for persons (including unborn or unascertained persons) in trust arbitrations, with provisions for arbitration guardians for persons under disability. Awards bind represented persons unless obtained by fraud or non-disclosure. Section 49 is amended to grant tribunals all powers of court regarding trust administration, execution and variation, or exercise of powers. Section 18 is replaced to provide that arbitration agreements are deemed to prohibit disclosure of confidential information unless expressly stated otherwise, while Section 22 is substantially revised to require court proceedings under the Act to be conducted in private upon application by any party, unless objection is made. Sections 23, 24, 25 and 47A are repealed. Second 89 is replaced by provisions for challenging awards on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction. Section 90 is replaced from the 2023 amendments and addresses challenges based on serious irregularity affecting the tribunal proceedings or award, defining nine categories of serious irregularity. Section 91 permits appeals on points of law with leave of the court, subject to strict criteria including that the tribunal’s decision is obviously wrong or involves questions of general public importance. Section 92 introduces supplementary provisions requiring exhaustion of arbitral remedies before court applications and imposing a 28-day time limit for applications or appeals. Section 9 is amended to clarify that legal proceedings include applications concerning administration questions and permits stays to be sought by any party to the trust. Section 83 is amended regarding trustees’ entitlement to costs from trust funds. Mandatory provisions in Section 5 are updated to reflect the new and amended provisions. There are draft bills for domestic and international mediation which may impact the arbitration landscape in The Bahamas in the future.

For an arbitration agreement to be enforceable under the laws of The Bahamas, the arbitration agreement must be in writing. Section 6 of the Arbitration Act 2009 details what constitutes “in writing”, with a broad interpretation that includes exchange of communications and any record evidencing the agreement, and includes electronic communication and data messages. The arbitration agreement must comply with general contractual principles and must contemplate a final and binding decision by the arbitral tribunal. Under the laws of The Bahamas, the doctrine of separability is applicable, except insofar as it relates to the arbitration of trust disputes. Finally, the arbitration agreement must not violate public policy or legal requirements specific to The Bahamas.

Criminal matters cannot be submitted to arbitration, in addition to certain family law matters such as adoption, marriage, divorce and devolution of property on death, which are all excluded from arbitration in The Bahamas. A catch-all is anything where an award would be contrary to Bahamian public policy, but it is important to remember that Bahamian law has made legislative provision for the arbitration of trust disputes, which could, on its face, be seen as contrary to public policy. Essentially, the general approach used in The Bahamas to determine whether or not a dispute is “arbitrable” is, firstly, a consideration of whether the subject matter is capable of being settled by arbitration and, secondly, a residual public policy check.

Consistently, Bahamian courts have shown a pro-arbitration approach, most notably in the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Gabriele Volpi v Delanson Services Limited et al, which upheld and enforced an arbitration clause in the trust instruments and stayed related litigation. Courts generally apply Bahamian law as the law of the arbitration agreement in the absence of an express or implied choice, following the established common-law approach of looking first to an express choice, then secondly to an implied choice, and lastly to the law with the closest connection to the agreement. Arbitration agreements are, in practice, usually enforced by Bahamian courts.

Both the Arbitration Act 2009 and its amendments as well as the ICAA 2023 adopt express provisions on the doctrine of separability. This means that an arbitration clause is treated as a distinct agreement from the underlying contract and survives even if the main contract is found to be invalid or void or to have never come into existence, unless the arbitration clause itself is independently impugned. The doctrine of separability is disapplied insofar as it relates to the arbitration of trust disputes under legislation.

Party autonomy in selecting arbitrators is broad, subject only to the overriding requirements of independence and impartiality and to any restrictions the parties themselves adopt (eg, institutional rules on nationality or qualifications). There is no general Bahamian law restriction on foreign nationals or foreign-qualified practitioners sitting as arbitrators, reflecting the jurisdiction’s aim of positioning itself as an international arbitration seat.

If the parties’ chosen appointment mechanism fails, both the ICAA 2023 (Model Law-based) and the Arbitration Act 2009 empower the Supreme Court to make the necessary appointment on application by a party. Where the parties have not agreed a number of arbitrators, a sole arbitrator is typically appointed by default. Multiparty appointment issues are generally addressed through the parties’ own procedural agreement or institutional rules, with the Supreme Court retaining a residual default power where the appointment machinery breaks down.

The Supreme Court can intervene to appoint arbitrators where the agreed procedure fails, but its power is limited to filling gaps in the parties’ chosen procedure; it will not interfere where that mechanism is functioning, reflecting the policy of minimal court intervention that runs through both the Arbitration Act 2009 and the ICAA 2023.

Both the Arbitration Act 2009 and the ICAA 2023 allow a party to challenge or seek removal of an arbitrator on grounds of justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, failure to possess agreed qualifications, physical or mental incapacity, or refusal or failure properly to conduct the proceedings causing substantial injustice. Challenges are generally made first under any agreed challenge procedure or applicable institutional rules, with recourse to the Supreme Court only if that internal procedure does not resolve the challenge.

Arbitrators are required to be and remain independent and impartial throughout the proceedings and must disclose, promptly and on an ongoing basis, any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality. In some instances, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest can be used as a reference point in determining independence and impartiality by Bahamian tribunals and counsel.

The principle of competence-competence is expressly recognised in the Bahamian arbitral framework. An arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, either as a preliminary matter or in its final award.

The courts may address jurisdictional issues at the pre-arbitration stage, when asked to stay court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, and post-award, on an application to set aside or resist enforcement of an award on jurisdictional grounds. Bahamian courts have shown a marked reluctance to intervene prematurely, generally preferring to let the tribunal rule on its own jurisdiction first and confining court review to a supervisory role at the award stage. Negative jurisdictional rulings by a tribunal can also be reviewed by the court on the application of the party affected.

Parties may challenge jurisdiction before the tribunal at the outset of proceedings (no later than the statement of defence) and, following a tribunal ruling on jurisdiction as a preliminary question, may apply promptly to the Supreme Court for a ruling on that question. Otherwise, jurisdictional objections are ordinarily addressed by the courts only after the award is rendered, by way of a challenge to, or resistance of enforcement of, the award.

Where a tribunal’s positive ruling on jurisdiction is challenged as a preliminary question, the Supreme Court exercises a full, de novo review rather than simply deferring to the tribunal’s own assessment, consistent with the Model Law approach adopted by the ICAA 2023. At the post-award stage, however, courts exercise a supervisory rather than appellate function, examining jurisdiction only to the extent necessary to determine the specific statutory ground raised.

Bahamian courts will ordinarily stay proceedings commenced in breach of a valid arbitration agreement, provided that a timely application is made and there is no ground establishing that the agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. This reflects a strong and consistently applied pro-arbitration policy, reinforced in decisions such as Volpi.

Bahamian arbitration legislation does not generally permit tribunals to bind non-signatories, save in limited circumstances recognised at common law, such as where a party has become bound by assignment, novation, agency or estoppel, or, in appropriate cases, through the “group of companies” doctrine. These principles apply equally to foreign and domestic third parties, since jurisdiction turns on substantive contractual or equitable doctrine rather than nationality or domicile.

Tribunals may award interim measures including orders preserving assets, maintaining the status quo, preventing harm to the arbitral process, and preserving evidence. Interim measures granted by a tribunal are binding on the parties and, under the ICAA 2023, are directly enforceable through the Supreme Court in the same manner as an award, subject to limited grounds for refusal.

Bahamian courts retain a supportive role in granting interim relief in aid of arbitration, including in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations, where a tribunal has not yet been constituted or lacks effective power to grant the relief sought. Available court-ordered interim relief mirrors that available to a tribunal, and includes freezing orders, security for costs, and orders for the preservation of property or evidence. Emergency arbitrator mechanisms are recognised where the parties’ institutional rules provide for them. Decisions of an emergency arbitrator are treated as binding pending confirmation, variation or revocation by the constituted tribunal, and the courts retain a residual power to grant urgent interim relief even after an emergency arbitrator has been appointed, where necessary.

Both the Supreme Court and an arbitral tribunal have power to order security for costs, having regard to the same general principles applied in domestic litigation, including the claimant’s ability to satisfy an adverse costs order, though a tribunal will not order security solely on the ground that a claimant is foreign or resident abroad.

Domestic arbitration procedure is governed by the Arbitration Act 2009 and extends to the arbitration of trust disputes, while the procedure for international commercial arbitrations seated in The Bahamas is governed by the ICAA 2023 (incorporating the Model Law). Parties otherwise retain considerable autonomy to adopt institutional rules (eg, ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules).

Beyond the requirement that proceedings be conducted with equal treatment of the parties and a reasonable opportunity to present a case, Bahamian law imposes few mandatory procedural steps, leaving the tribunal and parties considerable flexibility to design a procedure appropriate to the dispute. Formal notice requirements apply to the commencement of arbitral proceedings, and specific statutory time limits apply to certain post-award applications.

Arbitrators are under a general statutory duty to act fairly and impartially, to give each party a reasonable opportunity to put its case, and to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense. Tribunals have wide case-management powers, including to determine procedural and evidential matters, order consolidation where agreed by the parties, and grant interim measures.

There is no requirement that legal representatives appearing in a Bahamian-seated arbitration hold local rights of audience; parties are generally free to be represented by counsel of their choice, whether Bahamian-qualified or foreign-qualified, reflecting the international character of the ICAA 2023 regime, in contrast to the position for Bahamian court litigation, which generally requires representation by a locally admitted attorney except by special admission, which is only granted in limited circumstances.

Bahamian-seated arbitrations typically follow an approach influenced by the jurisdiction’s common-law heritage, combined with the flexibility afforded by the applicable arbitration legislation and institutional rules. Tribunals commonly adopt document disclosure narrower than full common-law discovery, rely on written witness statements taken as evidence-in-chief, and permit cross-examination at the hearing. Privilege is respected in accordance with general common-law principles, and tribunals frequently draw on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration as guidance rather than binding rules.

Strict domestic rules of evidence, such as those governing admissibility before the Bahamian courts, do not generally apply to arbitral proceedings; instead, the tribunal determines the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of evidence, subject to the parties’ agreement and any applicable institutional rules.

Under Bahamian law, an arbitral tribunal lacks coercive or penal powers, but it can direct that a party comply with document production and witness attendance. Otherwise, the Supreme Court can assist by ordering the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, including non-parties, in support of arbitral proceedings, on application by a party with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement of the other parties. As against parties to the arbitration agreement, tribunals have their own contractual powers to order disclosure; compulsion of non-parties, however, requires recourse to the court’s coercive powers.

Arbitral proceedings seated in The Bahamas are private, and the Arbitration Act 2009 (as amended in 2023) contains express confidentiality provisions restricting disclosure of information relating to the proceedings and the award, subject to specified exceptions (eg, disclosure required by law, to protect a party’s legal rights, or with the consent of the other party). Confidential information may not generally be relied upon in subsequent proceedings save within these exceptions.

An award must be made in writing, signed by the arbitrator(s), state the seat of arbitration and the date, and give reasons unless the parties have agreed reasons are unnecessary or the award is by consent. Neither the Arbitration Act 2009 nor the ICAA 2023 imposes a fixed statutory time limit for delivery of an award, though the tribunal is expected to proceed without unnecessary delay, and the parties or the tribunal’s own procedural timetable may impose one.

Tribunals have wide remedial powers equivalent to those of the Supreme Court, including declarations, specific performance (other than in respect of land), rectification, and orders for the payment of money and interest, unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise. Punitive or exemplary damages are not generally regarded as available in the absence of an express agreement, consistent with the common law’s general reluctance to award punitive damages in a contractual context.

Parties are generally entitled to recover both pre- and post-award interest, and legal and arbitration costs, as the tribunal considers appropriate, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The default approach follows the “costs follow the event” principle familiar from Bahamian court practice, subject to the tribunal’s discretion to depart from that default where a party’s conduct, or the manner in which it has pursued or defended the case, justifies a different allocation.

There is no general right of appeal on the merits of an international arbitration award under the ICAA 2023, which follows the Model Law’s exhaustive and narrow grounds for setting aside an award (broadly mirroring the 1958 New York Convention grounds for refusal of enforcement). Domestic awards under the Arbitration Act 2009 may, in more limited circumstances and only where the parties have not excluded the right, be appealed to the Supreme Court on a point of law, in addition to being challengeable for serious irregularity or lack of substantive jurisdiction.

Parties may agree to exclude the limited right of appeal on a point of law available under the Arbitration Act 2009 but they cannot exclude the mandatory, non-derogable grounds for challenging an award for serious irregularity or lack of substantive jurisdiction, nor the equivalent mandatory setting-aside grounds under the ICAA 2023.

Where a point of law appeal is available and has not been excluded, the Supreme Court applies a de novo standard to the legal question at issue. On applications to set aside for serious irregularity or lack of jurisdiction, or under the ICAA 2023’s Model Law grounds, the court applies a supervisory, deferential standard, and does not review the tribunal’s findings of fact or its assessment of the merits.

The Bahamas acceded to the 1958 New York Convention with effect from 20 March 2007, without material reservations affecting its general application, and gave it domestic effect through the Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009. The Bahamas is also a member of the ICSID Convention.

An application for recognition and enforcement is made to the Supreme Court, supported by the award and the arbitration agreement (or certified copies), following which the award is enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the court, subject only to the limited grounds for refusal recognised under the 1958 New York Convention and mirrored in the Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009 and the ICAA 2023. An award set aside by a competent court at the seat will generally not be enforced in The Bahamas, since this is itself a recognised ground for refusal, although the Bahamian court retains a discretion in appropriate cases. Where set-aside proceedings are pending at the seat, the Bahamian court may adjourn the enforcement application and, if it so orders, require the party opposing enforcement to provide suitable security.

Bahamian courts have adopted a strongly pro-enforcement approach, treating the grounds for refusal narrowly and construing “public policy” restrictively, limited to fundamental principles of justice and morality rather than mere disagreement with the tribunal’s reasoning or the substantive law applied. A state or state entity may raise sovereign immunity, but Bahamian common law recognises a restrictive doctrine of immunity, meaning immunity will not usually shield a state from enforcement of an award arising from commercial activity, particularly where the state has agreed to arbitrate.

Bahamian arbitration legislation does not contain specific provision for class or group arbitration, and, consistent with the consensual nature of arbitration, such claims may only be arbitrated together where all affected parties have agreed, whether in a single arbitration agreement or through subsequent consolidation.

Bahamian counsel appearing in arbitration remain subject to the professional conduct rules of the Bahamas Bar Association. Arbitrators are commonly expected to observe internationally recognised standards such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest and the IBA Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators, or the relevant rules of any international institution under which the arbitration is administered.

There is no dedicated statutory regime specifically regulating third-party funding of arbitration in The Bahamas; funding arrangements are assessed against the ordinary common-law doctrines of maintenance and champerty, which have historically restricted the funding of litigation but have been relaxed in many common-law jurisdictions in the arbitration context. Bahamian courts have not yet definitively ruled on the point, but touched on it briefly in the April 2026 Court of Appeal ruling in Delanson Services Limited v Matteo Volpi et al in considering litigation funding arrangements against maintenance and champerty. Prudent practitioners should structure funding arrangements carefully with reference to these doctrines.

Consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings is only possible with the agreement of all parties concerned, whether recorded in the arbitration agreements themselves or subsequently; neither the Arbitration Act 2009 nor the ICAA 2023 confers a general power on the Supreme Court or a tribunal to consolidate proceedings absent such agreement, reflecting the strictly consensual basis of arbitration under Bahamian law.

Third parties may be bound by an arbitration agreement or award in limited circumstances recognised at common law, including succession (eg, on death, insolvency or assignment), agency, and equitable doctrines such as estoppel, as well as, in the trust context, where a trust instrument itself incorporates a valid arbitration clause binding trustees, beneficiaries and other interested parties, as recognised in the Volpi litigation. Bahamian courts have not to date exercised any general power to bind foreign third parties beyond these established doctrines.