All questions
Year in review
In the past year, court sessions in Bahrain have been limited because of the outbreak of covid-19. The pandemic has had a significant effect on business in Bahrain and the wider region, which has, in turn, caused interruptions and delays to litigation and international arbitration. However, these affects appear to be diminishing over time, as recent announcements from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry showed that, in the first half of 2022, Bahrain’s economic recovery continued well (especially in the transport, communications and hospitality sectors). The resultant effects of the pandemic and current global economic issues appear to be being mitigated in Bahrain.
In an attempt to address delays caused by the pandemic, the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments announced that the high criminal courts, the high civil courts, the administrative courts and the lower criminal courts would take part in televised court proceedings. A hybrid approach to court proceedings now appears to be accepted practice.
Arbitration proceedings have largely been unaffected, as arbitration is by nature a flexible dispute resolution mechanism. Participants have been able to proceed with arbitrations with only limited covid-19-related interference, while remote hearings have become standard practice. Arbitral institutions, such as the Bahrain Chamber for Economic, Financial and Investment Dispute Resolution (BCDR), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), have implemented measures to streamline and improve remote working, facilitating online filing and case management.
Tribunals, legal representatives and parties have been able to adapt quickly and have been able to make use of the state-of-the-art technology available to ensure that any covid-19 interruptions are limited as far as possible. In light of this, it should be remembered that the flexibility of international arbitration means that an arbitral tribunal can often render a decision far quicker than the domestic courts, with limited scope for appeal and a facilitated international enforcement process. Therefore, at least in theory, the process should be more cost effective than domestic litigation.
