{"id":4915,"date":"2026-04-11T17:53:04","date_gmt":"2026-04-11T14:53:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/?p=4915"},"modified":"2026-05-28T10:52:45","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T07:52:45","slug":"fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"FOSFA Arbitration: New Rules from 1 April 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_71 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-transparent ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">\u0421\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#What_Are_the_FOSFA_Rules_of_Arbitration_and_Appeal_and_Which_Contracts_Do_They_Govern\" title=\"What Are the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal and Which Contracts Do They Govern\">What Are the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal and Which Contracts Do They Govern<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#Key_Changes_in_2026\" title=\"Key Changes in 2026\">Key Changes in 2026<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#1_Email_Becomes_the_Standard_Method_of_Exchanging_Documents_Rule_4\" title=\"1. Email Becomes the Standard Method of Exchanging Documents (Rule 4)\">1. Email Becomes the Standard Method of Exchanging Documents (Rule 4)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#2_English_Is_Mandatory_for_All_Submissions_and_Oral_Evidence_Rules_4_and_9a\" title=\"2. English Is Mandatory for All Submissions and Oral Evidence (Rules 4 and 9(a))\">2. English Is Mandatory for All Submissions and Oral Evidence (Rules 4 and 9(a))<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#3_Renewal_of_a_Lapsed_Claim_Is_Limited_to_One_Occasion_Rule_3\" title=\"3. Renewal of a Lapsed Claim Is Limited to One Occasion (Rule 3)\">3. Renewal of a Lapsed Claim Is Limited to One Occasion (Rule 3)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#4_The_Exchange_of_Written_Positions_on_Appeal_Has_Been_Streamlined_Rules_7f%E2%80%93h\" title=\"4. The Exchange of Written Positions on Appeal Has Been Streamlined (Rules 7(f)\u2013(h))\">4. The Exchange of Written Positions on Appeal Has Been Streamlined (Rules 7(f)\u2013(h))<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-rules-2026\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_Are_the_FOSFA_Rules_of_Arbitration_and_Appeal_and_Which_Contracts_Do_They_Govern\"><\/span>What Are the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal and Which Contracts Do They Govern<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 <strong>Arbitration Clause<\/strong> referring disputes to arbitration in London &#8220;in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of the Federation \u2026 in force at the date of this contract&#8221;. For an account of FOSFA arbitration structure and procedure, see the <a href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/fosfa-arbitration-general-guide\/\">general guide to FOSFA arbitration<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase &#8220;in force at the date of this contract&#8221; is critical during the transitional period. The applicable edition of the Rules is determined by the <strong>date on which the contract was entered into<\/strong> \u2014 not the date of the arbitration claim or the date of the hearing. The 2026 Rules therefore apply only to contracts concluded <strong>on or after 1 April 2026<\/strong>. Earlier contracts \u2014 even where a dispute arises in 2026 or 2027 \u2014 remain governed by whichever edition was in force when they were made.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Changes_in_2026\"><\/span>Key Changes in 2026<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 (<strong>Claimant<\/strong>, <strong>Respondent<\/strong>, <strong>Appellant<\/strong>, <strong>Award<\/strong>) are now consistently capitalised throughout the text, but this has no substantive effect.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Email_Becomes_the_Standard_Method_of_Exchanging_Documents_Rule_4\"><\/span>1. Email Becomes the Standard Method of Exchanging Documents (Rule 4)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The most practically significant change concerns the opening paragraph of Rule 4, which sets out the general rules for submitting documents in FOSFA arbitrations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Before (2025 edition):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">All submissions, interlocutory applications and related correspondence referred to under this Rule shall be dispatched within any of the specified time limits \u2014 one copy to each of the appointed arbitrators; one copy to the other party; one copy to the Federation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>After (2026 edition):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">All submissions <strong>and evidence<\/strong>, interlocutory applications and related correspondence referred to under this Rule shall be dispatched within any of the specified time limits <strong>via email<\/strong> to each of the appointed arbitrators; a copy to the other party; a copy to the Federation. <strong>Hard copies shall be provided by the parties upon request.<\/strong> All submissions and evidence, written or oral, <strong>are to be in English or with English translations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Three changes are packed into this single paragraph.<\/p>\n<p><strong>First<\/strong>, email is now expressly named as the method of delivery. The old wording \u2014 &#8220;one copy&#8221; \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Second<\/strong>, the scope of the paragraph has been broadened. The previous text referred to &#8220;submissions, interlocutory applications and related correspondence&#8221;. The word <strong>evidence<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Third<\/strong>, the Rules now expressly require the <strong>use of the English language<\/strong> \u2014 discussed in the next section.<\/p>\n\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/benyamin_bohlouli-LpEyM8nksws-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Legal books on desk for English law reference\" title=\"\">\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_English_Is_Mandatory_for_All_Submissions_and_Oral_Evidence_Rules_4_and_9a\"><\/span>2. English Is Mandatory for All Submissions and Oral Evidence (Rules 4 and 9(a))<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The new edition expressly provides, for the first time, that all submissions and evidence \u2014 written and oral \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rule 9(a) \u2014 Board of Appeal hearings:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">Each party may state its case orally and\/or in writing <strong>and are to be in English or with English translations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The word <strong>&#8220;oral&#8221;<\/strong> deserves particular attention \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Renewal_of_a_Lapsed_Claim_Is_Limited_to_One_Occasion_Rule_3\"><\/span>3. Renewal of a Lapsed Claim Is Limited to One Occasion (Rule 3)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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 <strong>notice of renewal<\/strong> before the year expires.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Before (2025):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">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\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>After (2026):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">Such renewal shall be for a period of one year <strong>only<\/strong> from the date of the giving of notice of renewal\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>A single word \u2014 <strong>&#8220;only&#8221;<\/strong> \u2014 but its consequences are significant. The old wording was silent on whether a party could renew repeatedly \u2014 a second, third, or fourth time \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<p>By way of comparison, GAFTA Arbitration Rules No. 125 expressly permit successive renewals under the analogous provision (Rule 4.10): <em>&#8220;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.&#8221;<\/em> Six successive renewals \u2014 up to the six-year limitation period under English law (Limitation Act 1980).<\/p>\n<p>FOSFA has gone in the opposite direction. The word &#8220;only&#8221; limits renewal to <strong>a single occasion<\/strong>. This means that following the notice of arbitration, a party has a maximum of <strong>two years<\/strong> 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 \u2014 subject to the arbitrators&#8217; residual discretion to allow it to continue (&#8220;unless the arbitrator\/s shall in their absolute discretion otherwise determine&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/sasun1990-zbQ5UaREHx4-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Statue of justice holding scales for appeal procedure\" title=\"\">\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_The_Exchange_of_Written_Positions_on_Appeal_Has_Been_Streamlined_Rules_7f%E2%80%93h\"><\/span>4. The Exchange of Written Positions on Appeal Has Been Streamlined (Rules 7(f)\u2013(h))<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rule 7(f)<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p>The difficulty lay in <strong>Rule 7(g)<\/strong>. The 2025 edition required the Respondent to file its Response &#8220;together with reasons for any cross-Appeal&#8221; within 21 days <strong>of receipt of the Appellant&#8217;s outline reasons for appeal<\/strong>. But the grounds for the cross-appeal were already governed by Rule 7(f), which ran the time limit differently: 21 days <strong>from the date the cross-appeal was lodged<\/strong>. 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&#8217;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 \u2014 the reasons for cross-appeal.<\/p>\n<p>The 2026 edition removes the duplication:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rule 7(g) \u2014 after the amendment:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">Upon receipt of Appellants&#8217; outline reasons for appeal, Respondents shall, within 21 days, serve to the Federation and to Appellants, a concise, reasoned statement of their Response.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The words &#8220;together with reasons for any cross-Appeal&#8221; have been deleted. The Response is now confined to answering the other party&#8217;s appeal. The grounds for the cross-appeal are filed separately, within the 21-day period under Rule 7(f).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, <strong>Rule 7(h)<\/strong>, which governs the Appellant&#8217;s right of reply to a cross-appeal, has been amended:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Before (2025):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">If any cross-Appeal is lodged, Appellants shall have <strong>14 days<\/strong> to exercise a right of reply.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>After (2026):<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\">If any cross-appeal is lodged, Appellants shall have <strong>21 days upon receipt of the outline reasons for cross appeal<\/strong> to exercise a right of reply.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Two changes. First, the period has been extended from 14 to <strong>21 days<\/strong>. Second, the starting point has been expressly fixed: the time runs not from the notice of cross-appeal but <strong>from receipt of the outline reasons for cross-appeal<\/strong> \u2014 the substantive document to which a reply is needed. The old wording \u2014 &#8220;14 days to exercise a right of reply&#8221; \u2014 left this question open.<\/p>\n<p>The net effect is that both parties are now in a <strong>symmetrical position<\/strong>: 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&#8217;s substantive grounds.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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) \u2014 all remain unchanged.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217; 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.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<p>\ud83d\udce7 <a href=\"mailto:danil@danil-hristich.com\">danil@danil-hristich.com<\/a>\n\ud83d\udcf1 <a href=\"https:\/\/t.me\/danilhristich\" target=\"_blank\">Telegram<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"https:\/\/wa.me\/380632956265\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WhatsApp<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4902,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"rank_math_title":"FOSFA Arbitration: New Rules from 1 April 2026 \u2014 Danil Hristich","rank_math_description":"FOSFA has updated its Rules of Arbitration and Appeal from 1 April 2026. We review all changes: email, English language, claim lapse, appeal timelines.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"FOSFA arbitration rules 2026","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,28],"tags":[166,14,414,321,790],"class_list":{"0":"post-4915","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-main","9":"tag-arbitration","10":"tag-fosfa","11":"tag-international-trade","12":"tag-procedure","13":"tag-rules-update"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4915"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4915\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4927,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4915\/revisions\/4927"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4902"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}