Paris Court Annuls $14.92B Arbitral Award Due to Jurisdiction Issues

2 min readSources: Lex Blog

The Paris Court of Appeal nullified a $14.92 billion arbitral award over jurisdiction issues.

Why it matters: This decision impacts general counsels by highlighting the need for precise jurisdictional clauses in arbitration agreements, potentially prompting changes to future contract structures.

  • On December 9, 2025, the Paris Court annulled a $14.92 billion award.
  • The court ruled the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction due to an outdated agreement.
  • A crucial dispute-resolution clause expired after diplomatic changes.
  • Claimants must reimburse Malaysia €200,000 in legal expenses.

The Paris Court of Appeal annulled a $14.92 billion arbitration award on December 9, 2025. This ruling is a pivotal moment in the legal battle between the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and Malaysia. The court found that the arbitrator, Gonzalo Stampa, lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement was invalid under French law. The agreement's flaw stemmed from the appointment process, which became obsolete after the dissolution of the British Consul-General in Brunei.

Historically, the case traces back to an 1878 agreement. The dispute escalated when Malaysia ceased specific payments in 2013, leading to a substantial award against it in 2022. However, Spanish courts had already questioned and invalidated Stampa's role due to procedural issues, influencing the outcome in France (Malaysia-Sulu Case Timeline).

Prior French court decisions, including those by the Court of Cassation, have consistently rejected enforcement of the award, and the recent annulment emphasizes the criticality of valid jurisdictional consent in arbitration, affecting how general counsels approach the structuring of agreements (Belgravia Law).

The ruling was favorably received by the Malaysian government, marking an end to the prolonged dispute. The claimants are now required to reimburse Malaysia €200,000 in legal fees, illustrating a financial burden for those advancing claims under flawed agreements.