Содержание
The new edition of the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal came into force on 1 April 2026. The amendments are few in number but touch the way parties and arbitrators actually conduct proceedings: email is now the prescribed method for submitting documents, English is mandatory for all submissions and oral evidence, renewal of a lapsed claim is limited to one occasion, and the exchange of written positions on appeal has been made more symmetrical.
What Are the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal and Which Contracts Do They Govern
The FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal are the procedural rules governing arbitrations and appeals under contracts issued by the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations. Every standard FOSFA contract includes an Arbitration Clause referring disputes to arbitration in London “in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of the Federation … in force at the date of this contract”. For an account of FOSFA arbitration structure and procedure, see the general guide to FOSFA arbitration.
The phrase “in force at the date of this contract” is critical during the transitional period. The applicable edition of the Rules is determined by the date on which the contract was entered into — not the date of the arbitration claim or the date of the hearing. The 2026 Rules therefore apply only to contracts concluded on or after 1 April 2026. Earlier contracts — even where a dispute arises in 2026 or 2027 — remain governed by whichever edition was in force when they were made.
In practice, this means that FOSFA arbitrators will be working under two parallel editions of the Rules for the foreseeable future, and parties need to identify precisely which edition applies to their particular contract.
Key Changes in 2026
The amendments address four procedural areas: the method of exchanging documents, the language of proceedings, renewal of lapsed claims, and appeal-stage timelines. The remaining changes are cosmetic: defined terms (Claimant, Respondent, Appellant, Award) are now consistently capitalised throughout the text, but this has no substantive effect.
1. Email Becomes the Standard Method of Exchanging Documents (Rule 4)
The most practically significant change concerns the opening paragraph of Rule 4, which sets out the general rules for submitting documents in FOSFA arbitrations.
Before (2025 edition):
All submissions, interlocutory applications and related correspondence referred to under this Rule shall be dispatched within any of the specified time limits — one copy to each of the appointed arbitrators; one copy to the other party; one copy to the Federation.
After (2026 edition):
All submissions and evidence, interlocutory applications and related correspondence referred to under this Rule shall be dispatched within any of the specified time limits via email to each of the appointed arbitrators; a copy to the other party; a copy to the Federation. Hard copies shall be provided by the parties upon request. All submissions and evidence, written or oral, are to be in English or with English translations.
Three changes are packed into this single paragraph.
First, email is now expressly named as the method of delivery. The old wording — “one copy” — implied physical copies and dated from an era when paper submissions were genuinely posted in triplicate. In practice, FOSFA arbitrations had long been conducted by email, but the Rules did not formally say so. Email is now a requirement of the Rules, not a matter of agreement or custom.
Second, the scope of the paragraph has been broadened. The previous text referred to “submissions, interlocutory applications and related correspondence”. The word evidence has now been added, making clear that not only procedural documents but also the evidentiary record (contractual documents, invoices, correspondence, quality certificates, expert reports) must be dispatched by email within the prescribed time limits. Hard copies are available only on request.
Third, the Rules now expressly require the use of the English language — discussed in the next section.
2. English Is Mandatory for All Submissions and Oral Evidence (Rules 4 and 9(a))
The new edition expressly provides, for the first time, that all submissions and evidence — written and oral — must be in English or accompanied by English translations. This requirement appears in two places: in the general provision of Rule 4 for first-instance arbitrations, and in Rule 9(a) for hearings before the Board of Appeal.
Rule 9(a) — Board of Appeal hearings:
Each party may state its case orally and/or in writing and are to be in English or with English translations.
In substance, this codifies what was already standard practice: FOSFA is a London-seated arbitration applying English law, and submitting documents in any other language without translation was already impracticable. But arbitrators now have an express procedural basis on which to reject a document in a foreign language that is not accompanied by a translation, and parties have a clear duty to provide translations in advance rather than at the hearing.
The word “oral” deserves particular attention — the English-language requirement extends to oral evidence. Witnesses giving testimony at a hearing must either be proficient in English or be accompanied by an interpreter arranged and funded by the party calling them.
3. Renewal of a Lapsed Claim Is Limited to One Occasion (Rule 3)
Rule 3 (Lapse of Claim) provides that if neither party submits documentary evidence or submissions within one year of the arbitration claim, the claim is deemed to have lapsed. To prevent this, a party may serve a notice of renewal before the year expires.
Before (2025):
Such renewal shall be for a period of one year from the date of the giving of notice of renewal when it shall lapse again unless by then documentary evidence or submissions have been submitted…
After (2026):
Such renewal shall be for a period of one year only from the date of the giving of notice of renewal…
A single word — “only” — but its consequences are significant. The old wording was silent on whether a party could renew repeatedly — a second, third, or fourth time — by serving a fresh notice of renewal before each successive annual period expired. The 2025 text did not expressly prohibit this, and in practice parties sometimes took advantage of this silence, keeping a claim alive for years without filing substantive submissions.
By way of comparison, GAFTA Arbitration Rules No. 125 expressly permit successive renewals under the analogous provision (Rule 4.10): “The claim may be thus renewed for successive periods of 1 year, but not to exceed more than 6 years from the date of the first notice served in accordance with Rule 2.” Six successive renewals — up to the six-year limitation period under English law (Limitation Act 1980).
FOSFA has gone in the opposite direction. The word “only” limits renewal to a single occasion. This means that following the notice of arbitration, a party has a maximum of two years in which to file substantive submissions: the initial one-year period plus the single permitted renewal. If neither party submits documentary evidence or submissions within those two years, the claim lapses definitively — subject to the arbitrators’ residual discretion to allow it to continue (“unless the arbitrator/s shall in their absolute discretion otherwise determine”).
This represents a material tightening compared with the previous edition and a notable contrast with the GAFTA approach. Parties accustomed to the practice of annual renewal should be aware that this option is no longer available under contracts entered into after 1 April 2026.
4. The Exchange of Written Positions on Appeal Has Been Streamlined (Rules 7(f)–(h))
The amendments to Rule 7 concern the exchange of written positions ahead of a Board of Appeal hearing, particularly where one party appeals and the other cross-appeals. To appreciate the changes, Rules 7(f), (g) and (h) need to be read together.
Rule 7(f) provides equal 21-day time limits for both parties to submit their grounds: the Appellant files outline reasons for appeal within 21 days of lodging the appeal, and the Respondent, if cross-appealing, files outline reasons for cross-appeal within 21 days of lodging the cross-appeal. This rule has not changed.
The difficulty lay in Rule 7(g). The 2025 edition required the Respondent to file its Response “together with reasons for any cross-Appeal” within 21 days of receipt of the Appellant’s outline reasons for appeal. But the grounds for the cross-appeal were already governed by Rule 7(f), which ran the time limit differently: 21 days from the date the cross-appeal was lodged. These are two different triggering events with different deadlines: the cross-appeal is lodged under Rule 7(c) within 7 days of the notice of appeal, whereas the Appellant’s outline reasons are filed under Rule 7(f) within 21 days of lodging the appeal. The result was that the Respondent faced two conflicting deadlines for the same document — the reasons for cross-appeal.
The 2026 edition removes the duplication:
Rule 7(g) — after the amendment:
Upon receipt of Appellants’ outline reasons for appeal, Respondents shall, within 21 days, serve to the Federation and to Appellants, a concise, reasoned statement of their Response.
The words “together with reasons for any cross-Appeal” have been deleted. The Response is now confined to answering the other party’s appeal. The grounds for the cross-appeal are filed separately, within the 21-day period under Rule 7(f).
At the same time, Rule 7(h), which governs the Appellant’s right of reply to a cross-appeal, has been amended:
Before (2025):
If any cross-Appeal is lodged, Appellants shall have 14 days to exercise a right of reply.
After (2026):
If any cross-appeal is lodged, Appellants shall have 21 days upon receipt of the outline reasons for cross appeal to exercise a right of reply.
Two changes. First, the period has been extended from 14 to 21 days. Second, the starting point has been expressly fixed: the time runs not from the notice of cross-appeal but from receipt of the outline reasons for cross-appeal — the substantive document to which a reply is needed. The old wording — “14 days to exercise a right of reply” — left this question open.
The net effect is that both parties are now in a symmetrical position: the Respondent (replying to the appeal) and the Appellant (replying to the cross-appeal) each have the same 21-day period running from receipt of the other side’s substantive grounds.
Conclusion
The 2026 edition of the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal does not alter the architecture of FOSFA arbitration: the two-tier system (first-instance tribunal plus Board of Appeal), the time limits for filing claims (90 days for quality/condition, one year for all others), and the restriction on legal representation at first instance and Board of Appeal hearings (save in cases of special importance) — all remain unchanged.
But behind the outwardly modest amendments lie substantive changes: the formalisation of email as the channel of communication and English as the language of proceedings, the single-renewal limit on lapsed claims (in contrast to six renewals under GAFTA 125), and the equalisation of the parties’ positions on appeal. If you are conducting or contemplating FOSFA arbitration under a contract entered into after 1 April 2026, these changes should be factored into your procedural strategy and budget.
If you have questions about FOSFA arbitration or need assistance with proceedings under the 2025 or 2026 edition of the Rules, feel free to get in touch:
