Mining Arbitration Report 2023: Most Active Arbitration Teams

This ranking was featured in our 2023 Mining Arbitration Report, which is part of a series of industry-focused arbitration reports edited by Jus Mundi and Jus Connect.

This issue explores the mining industry and presents a goldmine of information based on data available on Jus Mundi and Jus Connect as of February 2023. Discover updated insights into mining arbitration and exclusive statistics & rankings, as well as in-depth global and regional perspectives on mining projects, disputes, & arbitration from leading lawyers, arbitrators, experts, and in-house counsel.

Download it now

---

As of February 2023, our data revealed 844 active arbitration teams in mining and quarrying arbitration, including law firms, chambers, governmental legal teams, and expert firms.

Key Takeaways

• Among the top 3 most hired arbitration teams overall (including ex aequo), — i.e., law firms, chambers, governmental legal teams, and expert firms — 2 are chambers and 3 are law firms.
• Essex Court Chambers is the most active arbitration practice, according to our data. Twenty Essex, which comes second, is also the most active arbitration practice in commercial arbitration of mining disputes.

• King & Spalding, Clifford Chance, and Foley Hoag have heavier caseloads in mining arbitration than in any other economic sector, according to our data.
• Foley Hoag, which closes this top 5, is the only law firm in this ranking that has only been involved in investor-State arbitrations in mining cases, according to our data. All other firms ranked have been hired both in commercial and investor-State arbitration in mining cases.
• In 2022, our data shows that Clifford Chance has been involved in 3 mining cases, all investor-State arbitrations:
  • GMAS v. Greenland and Denmark;
  • Ascent v. Slovenia; and
  • Towra v. Slovenia.

In the last two cases, Clifford Chance represented the respondent State, i.e., Slovenia, while they represented the investor in GMAS v. Greenland and Denmark. The latter is also the one mining arbitration (excluding the Mining & Quarrying sub-sector “Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas (oil)”) in our database, with its seat located in Copenhagen. It is interesting to note that the Australian claimant in this case agreed to a seat of arbitration located in the respondent State.

• Clifford Chance also has one of the most active commercial arbitration practices in mining arbitration, according to our data.

Squire Patton Boggs tends to be hired more often to represent respondents, including respondent States, and is more involved in commercial arbitrations of mining disputes than ISDS.

It is already involved in a newly filed mining arbitration in 2023 to represent Panama in MPSA v. Panama. This is a domestic commercial arbitration filed before the Inter-American Commission of Commercial Arbitration (IACAC).

• Clifford Chance, Jones Day, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, and Baker McKenzie all have a heavier commercial arbitration caseload than investor-State.
• De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek and Debevoise & Plimpton have been primarily involved in mining arbitration, more than any other economic sector.

• Essex Court Chambers is the most active chamber as well as the most active overall arbitration practice in mining arbitration, i.e., including law firms, chambers, governmental legal teams, and expert firms, according to our data.

• Mining projects heavily involve State, which are involved in mining arbitration both as commercial entities and as host countries. They can therefore be parties both to commercial and investor-State arbitrations.

---

Find more data-backed insights in our 2023 Mining Arbitration Report

Download the full Report