Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution Lawyers

Our Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution team has significant experience in dealing with arbitration, mediation and all other means of alternative dispute resolution.

Alternative dispute resolution lawyers

Our clients include some of the world’s leading investment banks, financial institutions, legal and accounting firms, trust companies, local governments, insurance companies and high net worth individuals, all of whom have an increasing interest in, and demand for, alternative methods and processes to resolve their disputes.

It has become clear over the past decade that there has been a notable increase in the understanding of the benefits of alternative dispute resolution over court litigation.

Arbitration lawyers

Arbitration in particular has become a popular method of resolving commercial disputes. With arbitration clauses increasingly being found in commercial contracts, arbitration can deliver binding and internationally enforceable decisions.

Our expert alternative dispute resolution lawyers are familiar with all major arbitration conventions and rules, and also conduct ad-hoc arbitrations under rules of the parties’ own devising. This deep knowledge and experience enables an arbitration lawyer at Appleby to help clients achieve cost-effective and commercial outcomes in resolving disputes independently of traditional forms of litigation.

Our global presence enables our arbitration lawyers to provide timely and comprehensive legal advice at the times most critical to our clients.

Our team is experienced in all aspects of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, including:

  • Routinely advising on the meaning and effect of dispute resolution clauses
  • Drafting highly effective dispute resolution clauses tailored to the client’s specific needs
  • Providing strategic advice and representation in all means of alternative dispute resolution including mediation, expert determination, adjudication and early neutral evaluation
  • Conduct of arbitration proceedings
  • Legal proceedings in aid of foreign and local arbitrations
  • Enforcement of arbitral awards

In need of an arbitration lawyer? View our experts in alternative dispute resolution here.

Types of alternative dispute resolution

Although arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is well-known, there are other options for conflict resolution outside the conventional legal system. Arbitration lawyers will also be skilled in various other alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation, conciliation, expert determination, adjudication and collaborative law.

For example, in mediation, a neutral mediatory facilitates communication, guiding parties toward a voluntary agreement. Conciliation shares similarities, involving a third party assisting in resolution, often with suggestions. Both methods prioritise cooperation, offering alternatives to the binding decisions associated with arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution solution.

In conclusion, alternative dispute resolution methods, including arbitration, empower parties to resolve disputes collaboratively, with arbitration lawyers perfectly placed to navigate these effective substitutes to traditional litigation.

Some commonly asked questions about arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, sometimes abbreviated to ADR, are highlighted below:

What is alternative dispute resolution?

Alternative dispute resolution comprises non-litigious methods to resolve conflicts, such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation that act as alternatives to traditional court proceedings for more efficient and collaborative dispute resolution.

What is arbitration in dispute resolution?

Arbitration is a dispute resolution process where parties present their cases to a neutral arbitrator, who renders a binding decision, offering a confidential and efficient alternative to litigation.

What are the different types of alternative dispute resolution?

The different types of alternative dispute resolution can be quite varied depending on the setting or industry and include options such as arbitration, mediation, adjudication, conciliation, negotiation, collaborative law, mini-trials, and expert determination.

Our Experts
  • All
  • Guernsey (3)
  • BVI (2)
  • Mauritius (2)
  • Isle of Man (1)
  • Cayman Islands (2)
  • Jersey (2)
  • Bermuda (2)
  • Hong Kong (3)
  • Shanghai (1)
More news
Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan V Mansimov Abstract

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Website-Code-BVI-2
6 Aug 2026

The Rights of Sanctioned Litigants to access to the Court: Court of Appeal issues Key Decision in the BVI

The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has delivered a significant judgment in AO Alfa-Bank v Kipford Ventures Limited, overturning a stay of proceedings and reinstating a US$142 million freezing injunction. The decision provides important guidance on access to justice, sanctions, and interim relief in the BVI.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.