Why Parties Choose English Law
English law is frequently selected as a neutral, well-developed legal framework, offering predictability of interpretation, a substantial body of commercial case law, and strong international recognition — particularly valuable where neither party wishes to be governed by the other’s domestic legal system. This is especially common in finance, technology and payments-related agreements, where international counterparties expect English law as a market standard.
Choosing English law as the governing law of a contract is, however, a distinct decision from choosing the seat of any related arbitration or the forum for litigation. We regularly encounter contracts where English law governs the substance of the agreement, while the seat of arbitration is London, Paris, or elsewhere — a structure that works well, provided it is deliberately chosen rather than inherited from a template.
What Changes Once a Dispute Arises
Interpretation Under English Law Principles
English courts and tribunals apply well-established principles of contractual construction — giving primacy to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, read in their commercial context. This differs in important respects from interpretive approaches under Turkish law, and parties unfamiliar with English law principles can be caught off guard by how strictly English law tribunals apply the literal wording of a clause, even where the commercial outcome seems harsh.
Coordinating Strategy Across Two Systems
Where a dispute under an English law-governed contract involves a Turkish party, or where enforcement will ultimately need to occur against Turkish assets, the dispute is rarely confined to a single legal system. Strategy needs to account for how an English law analysis of liability interacts with the practical realities of enforcement in Turkey — including the recognition process for foreign judgments and arbitral awards discussed elsewhere on this site.
LCIA and Other English-Seated Arbitration
Many English law-governed contracts with Turkish parties provide for LCIA arbitration, particularly in payments, fintech and financial services agreements. LCIA proceedings bring their own procedural features — including the LCIA’s approach to costs and its rules on the conduct of arbitrators — that differ in meaningful ways from ICC or ISTAC proceedings, and which should inform strategy from the first procedural order onward.
The Value of Dual-Qualified Advice
Disputes that combine an English law-governed contract with a Turkish counterparty, Turkish assets, or a Turkish enforcement target benefit from advice that genuinely integrates both systems, rather than treating English law and Turkish law as two separate workstreams handled by separate, uncoordinated teams. A dual-qualified perspective — admitted both as a Turkish attorney and as a Solicitor of England and Wales — allows a single point of strategic oversight across the full lifecycle of the matter, from contract interpretation through to enforcement.
Tekin & Counsel advises on English law-governed contracts and disputes involving Turkish parties, coordinating directly with English solicitors and barristers where proceedings are seated in England and Wales, and managing the interface with Turkish enforcement and litigation strategy throughout.
