Global supply chains are a fact of modern commercial life – but they are also susceptible to a wide range of disruptive forces including macroeconomic and geopolitical shocks, and rapid changes prompted by regulatory action and technological advances. How can businesses anticipate and avoid supply chain issues or failing that, mitigate their effects and obtain redress?

On 4 June 2025, as part of London International Disputes Week, Gowling WLG hosted an insightful panel discussion discussing common issues in global supply chains and how to address them. With valuable perspectives from in-house counsel, the English bar, and dispute resolution lawyers from Gowling WLG's offices in England, France, Germany and Canada, here is a summary of the discussion.

The Panel

Chair

Tom Cox (Gowling WLG, London)

Panellists

Thomas Yates (Gowling WLG, Ottawa)
Nils Kupka (Gowling WLG, Frankfurt)
Sophia Allouache (Gowling WLG, Paris)
Richard Bielby-Wright (Aston Martin, UK)
Joseph Sullivan (Quadrant Chambers, London)

Crystal balls – what are the next global shocks for 2026?

The last couple of years have been a tumultuous time, with a seemingly constant series of global shocks disrupting trade and supply chains – be it global pandemic, chip shortages or war (both trade and territory). To start the discussion, Chair Tom Cox asked the panellists for their predictions for the coming year – where are the next shocks coming from?

  • Cyber attacks – Joseph Sullivan identified cyber attacks as a key disruptor. In recent months we have seen the dramatic effects of cyber attacks on supermarkets leading to sales downtime, disruption for consumers and huge losses. Research from insurer QBE shows that cyber attacks are increasing year on year and that trend is likely to continue, with over half of UK businesses having experienced a cyber attack in the last year, and half of those being related to a supplier. These pose a real risk for business, particularly those businesses operating just-in-time supply chains.
  • CSDDD – Sophia Allouache considered the implementation of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is likely to have huge impacts for supply chains. Although CSDDD originates in the EU, it will apply both to EU and non-EU companies and so its effects will be felt internationally, requiring companies to take responsibility for any adverse human rights and environmental impacts both in their company and in the wider supply chain. Sophia foresees future disputes where buyers terminate supplier relationships on ESG grounds.
  • Geo-political disruption of energy – Nils Kupka opted for energy as an ongoing issue in 2026, with geo-political competition likely to have a negative impact on energy supply. Europe for example, is heavily reliant on liquefied natural gas, with US, China and Qatar competing for market share.
  • Trade and Tariffs – on a related note, Thomas Yates saw trade and tariffs continuing to make headlines in 2026 – perhaps with China using its strength in rare earth minerals as leverage in negotiations with the US.
  • Instability – from the perspective of an in-house counsel, Richard Bielby-Wright said that what all this amounts to is instability being a continuing theme for the coming year, which is difficult for all levels of the supply chain.

What supply chain disputes are we seeing now?

Leaving the disputes of tomorrow to one side, the panel were asked for insights into the key areas of supply chain disputes today.

  • Price adjustments – in the automotive industry, Richard identified pricing as a key area of dispute with suppliers – particularly in the context of global instability and resultant fluctuations in input prices for the suppliers. While contracts may be tied to certain raw material price indices, the instability we're seeing means that suppliers are having to ask for price increases. Nils concurred that he was seeing a lot of price adjustment disputes in the automotive sector, and Sophia had seen a recent example in food and drink manufacturing – where a supplier was able to terminate their contract because increased raw material costs (in that case, of cacao) made the contract excessively burdensome to perform. Thomas had also had related requests for advice around suppliers' ability to increase prices (particularly in fixed-price contracts) to account for newly introduced tariffs.
  • Force majeure and Material adverse Change clauses – Nils also flagged force majeure as a current area of focus, with parties seeking to argue that events like the war in Ukraine have caused a fundamental change to the contract they thought they were entering into.
  • Delay – Nils and Thomas both pointed to disputes arising from delay in the supply chain. Nils talked about delays in the engineering phase of an automotive contract, with knock-on effects on manufacturing timelines and product availability. Thomas meanwhile gave an example from the space industry, where delays in the supply of specialist third party components led to a dispute about whether a party had fulfilled its "reasonable commercial endeavours" obligations to procure parts.

What can you do about it – remedies and relief

While many supply chain disputes can be resolved commercially and amicably, what are the legal options if this isn't possible? Tom asked the panel for an overview of rights and remedies in different forums and jurisdictions.

  • England – Joseph gave some insight into remedies in England, starting with litigation in the courts. He explained the principal remedy is monetary damages, but the courts have a wide range of remedies at their disposal, including specific performance, injunctive relief and declarations as to the parties' rights and obligations under supply contracts. The courts also have powers to award interim relief to preserve the position pending trial – so for example it is possible (though rare) to obtain an injunction to compel a supplier to continue supply.
  • If the parties have chosen arbitration as the forum for their disputes, then more or less anything a court can do, an arbitrator can do. A key consideration though is that unlike the court, an arbitrator's orders cannot bind a third party – and that may impact the effectiveness of any relief. Likewise, obtaining interim relief may not be so straightforward in arbitration – the courts can make interim orders to support the arbitration, but they may require the party to exhaust arbitral procedures (including e.g. appointing an emergency arbitrator) first.
  • Canada – the situation in Canada is almost identical to England. Courts and arbitrators can grant emergency relief. Thomas said the issue of the powers of emergency arbitrators has not really been in issue before the Canadian courts. Canada's arbitration law is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and that allows the enforcement of interim measures by the tribunal.
  • Germany – the types of relief that can be granted in German courts are very similar. Nils highlighted though that in Germany injunctive relief is always available from the courts in support of arbitration. This system functions effectively and so the DIS arbitration rules do not provide for the appointment of emergency arbitrators, relying instead on the courts to provide emergency relief where necessary.
  • France – the position on relief is very similar in France. Sophia added that orders of emergency arbitrators in France are not automatically enforceable, and you would need to go to court to obtain enforcement – so it is often not that useful to use emergency arbitrators in French-seated arbitrations.

Enforcement

Speaking of enforcement, the panel turned to consider how orders or awards could be enforced internationally, given the global nature of supply chains.

  • Arbitration awards – Joseph outlined the benefits of the New York Convention, which makes arbitration awards very broadly enforceable among the 170+ signatory states. To enforce a foreign arbitral award in England, you apply for recognition and enforcement of the award under the Arbitration Act 1996 and there are very limited circumstances in which recognition will be refused.
  • Judgments – enforcement of court judgments internationally is perhaps not so uniform. In England, it is possible to enforce foreign money judgments, and the range of reasons for refusing recognition and enforcement is wider than under the New York Convention. However, enforcement is not as streamlined as it was under the Brussels and Lugano regimes which the UK formerly enjoyed as a member of the EU. The position should improve somewhat from 1 July 2025 when the Hague Judgments Convention enters into force for the UK – that will allow enforcement of a broader range of judgments, less restrictive rules on founding jurisdiction, and with reciprocal arrangements with signatories including the EU. It is important to note though that interim awards cannot be enforced under the Hague Convention. (For more information see our article: Brexit: governing law, jurisdiction and enforcing judgments; and our recent article on the entry into force of the Hague Judgments Convention).
  • EU – Nils added that, between EU Member States, the enforcement of court judgments can be quite streamlined under the Brussels Recast Regulation. He recommended that for ease of enforcing interim awards, he would recommend ensuring the court handing down the injunction is the same court that has jurisdiction in the main proceedings and avoid ex parte decisions where possible.
  • Richard added that while the enforceability of an award – or an interim injunction – is an important consideration, sometimes simply obtaining the injunction is sufficient to unlock the commercial dispute, for instance if it attracts the attention of a parent company which is motivated and empowered to resolve the dispute.

Choosing your dispute resolution method

The panel were asked for any top tips on drafting dispute resolution clauses, including any considerations particular to their jurisdiction.

  • Speed – Thomas flagged that, for parties in Canada, arbitration was likely to be the favoured forum where speed of a decision is concerned, as it currently takes 5 years on average to get a judgment in the courts. Parties should consider that when drafting their dispute resolution provisions.
  • Binding third parties – for Nils, parties should consider the nature of the supply chain when choosing a forum. For international chains, arbitration is likely to be favoured, but if you have a purely domestic supply chain then you may well favour the national courts. One factor in favour of litigating in court is that a court's decision can bind third parties. However, Nils highlighted that DIS Arbitration Rules do have scope to join third parties – provided all contracts in the supply chain have compatible arbitration agreements.
  • Confidentiality – Joseph and Sophia emphasised the importance of confidentiality in some industries, e.g. pharmaceuticals and energy, which militates towards using arbitration.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution – Sophia also counselled the inclusion of a mandatory alternative dispute resolution stage in the dispute escalation process. Forcing the parties to negotiate or mediate can help the parties to shape their decision and restore dialogue. At the very least it can refine the issues in dispute and so save cost.
  • Flexibility – Richard agreed that a compulsory mediation step is valuable in helping to maintain supply relationships that have been built over time with significant financial investment. But there is no one size fits all, and dispute resolution choices should respond to the parties, rather than having rigid standard terms. The parties are of course free to change their minds too – so if they opt for litigation but later down the line decide that the confidentiality of arbitration is in their mutual interests, they can agree to arbitrate after the dispute arises.

Top Tips for avoiding and mitigating supply chain disputes

To conclude, Tom asked the panel for their top tips on avoiding supply chain disputes or resolving them swiftly. Here are their key takeaways:

  • Contract Clarity: define timelines, pricing mechanisms, and force majeure clauses clearly. For example, are timelines binding; is a fixed price net of tariffs, taxes and duties?
  • Proactive Management: regularly review and adapt contracts to reflect evolving risks.
  • Resilience and redundancy – proactively build resilience and redundancy into your supply chain where possible to minimise the effect of disputes on operations.
  • Early Engagement: if issues do arise, address them promptly and escalate to senior decision-makers. Getting the right people in the room early can shortcut disputes and preserve relationships.
  • Fairness and Flexibility: when disputes arise, fairness can go a long way - offering reasonable concessions helps to preserve valuable long-term relationships.

Many thanks to our panel and audience for an insightful discussion. You can watch a recording and read a transcript of the full event at: International Rescue – what you can do if global supply chains break down.