Professional practice

Tariq Baloch’s practice encompasses international arbitration (international investment treaty claims and international commercial arbitration), public international law and commercial litigation. He is highly sought after for international arbitration and arbitration related court cases, and on three occasions has been recognised by his peers and the major directories as the International Arbitration junior of the year (2019, 2022 and 2024).  He is regularly instructed by parties and states as a lead advocate to conduct advocacy in high stakes cases most recently in a series of cases in the English Courts for the Kingdom of Spain and in multi-billion dollar arbitrations. His most recent victory was in the Court of Appeal (before Vos (MR), Flaux (Chancellor) and Snowden LJ) where as lead advocate he successfully defended an application to make Spain’s appeal conditional on paying into court c 120 million euros [2024] EWCA Civ 52.

In commercial arbitration, he has represented or advised private parties under all the major arbitral rules in a wide range of sectors. His experience includes acting for some of the world’s largest companies in high value complex arbitrations involving disputes around the world. His cases are often multi-jurisdictional and raise complex procedural and substantive private law questions, calling upon his expertise in the fields of restitution, contract and remedies (having taught the subjects and written a leading text on them). He is often instructed on technical cases to conduct the cross examination of the experts, including on quantum.

In the past few years he has been involved in some of the more important precedent setting investor-state cases concerning issues such as the impact of the landmark Achmea judgment on the validity of investment treaties, the power of tribunals to issues interim measures preventing a state from pursuing criminal procedures, prosecution of pure customary international law claims under an investment treaty, the scope of reflective loss claims and state succession issues. He is also one of the handful of counsel who is equally in demand by investors and states and so has real insight into how both sides typically conduct their investor state cases.

He regularly represents parties in challenge, recognition and enforcement proceedings in the English courts. Most recently he represented the Kingdom of Spain as lead advocate in the Court of Appeal in one of the Lawyer magazine’s Top 10 appeals for 2024, appealing a judgment [2023] EWHC 1226 that has been described as “one of the most significant judgments on state immunity and international arbitration in decades”, as it provides “guidance […] on many issues of the interaction between UK primary legislation, international customary law [sic], the ICSID Convention and EU law”. Other significant cases in recent years include Operafund v Spain [2024] EWHC 82 (first case raising question of partial enforcement of an ICSID award), NIOC v Crescent [2023] EWCA 826 (a rare and probably first summary dismissal of s 67 challenge; and now the lead judgment on s 73 and on the scope of s67(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996); Crescent v NIOC [2024] EWHC 835 (successful invocation of s 423 of the Insolvency Act to retransfer a major asset in London; now on appeal on a novel question of trust law) and Infrastructure v Spain [2024] EWCA Civ 52 (lead judgment on applications to the Court of Appeal for conditions to be attached to the appeal). He is also instructed in another enforcement action against a large Asian state which raises novel issues about the operation of issue estoppel in claims against states.

Prior to entering practice, he was a full time academic and had been a lecturer and tutor at the University of Oxford and assistant professor at the London School of Economics. He regularly writes and speaks on international arbitration, international law, and law of obligations including at the Harvard Law School and the British Institute for International and Comparative Law. His book Unjust Enrichment and Contract (Hart, Oxford, 2009) is cited in leading English texts, including Chitty on Contracts and Goff and Jones: The law of Unjust Enrichment, and was described by the professor of English law at Oxford as the “definitive” work in the area. He is the author of the inaugural chapter on arbitration in Phipson on Evidence (20th ed, 2021), one of the leading English texts on the law of evidence. He was educated at Queen Mary, University of London (Herchel Smith Scholar), Harvard Law School (Kennedy Scholar) and the University of Oxford (Graduate Scholar), where he obtained his DPhil (PhD). He is also a proud trustee of the Kennedy Memorial Trust.

 

What Others Say

Chambers & Partners 2025, Energy & Natural Resources:
“Tariq is very good with clients, very thoughtful and innovative.”
“He writes crisply and on-point.”
“Tariq’s written submissions are wonderful.”
“He is a consummate team player and he has a razor-sharp mind.”
“Tariq Baloch is extraordinarily user-friendly.”

Chambers & Partners 2025, International Arbitration – The English Bar:
“Tariq has a remarkable ability to cut through the mess and convey the most essential points of the case.”
“He is another rising star; he has a considerable presence in the courtroom and is fantastic with clients.”
“I would highly recommend him; he is a good lawyer and a good man.”

Chambers & Partners 2025, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:
“Having him on your side is a relief.”
“Tariq Baloch is a stellar advocate.”
“He’s a real star.”
“He writes crisply and well and on point.”
“He is one of the best and brightest advocates around, and his written submissions are wonderful.”
“He is a consummate team player who will make any counsel team function better through his legal and human skills.”
“Tariq is extraordinarily user-friendly and razor sharp.”

Chambers & Partners 2025, Public International Law:
“He’s phenomenal on his feet and incredibly user-friendly.”
“Tariq is the pointy end of our spear as counsel advocate.”
“Tariq is a sterling advocate and an expert strategist.”
“Tariq Baloch is a phenomenal advocate who knows how to win the crowd, be it a court or tribunal.”
“Tariq is very easy to work with, awfully kind and able to roll with the punches when the client demands changes.”
“Tariq has an innovative legal mind that comes up with thoughtful and novel solutions.”

Chambers & Partners 2025, Public International Law: The English Bar:
“An expert in international arbitration and public international law; a steady hand in high-pressure situations.”
“He is a wonderful team player and a very attractive advocate on crafting a case theory.”
“He is incredibly client-friendly and pleasant to work with.”
“He is a terrific advocate who is able to convey complex points in a very simple, clear way to tribunals.”

The Legal 500 2025, International Arbitration:
“Tariq is very user friendly, responsive and easy to work with. He is very bright and a strong lawyer. His written and oral advocacy is excellent; he is both a real wordsmith and a persuasive, calm oral advocate who represents his client’s interests with skill and resilience.”

The Legal 500 2025, Energy:
“Tariq is a real wordsmith and an eloquent, serene advocate.”

Arbitration & related court applications
  • Successfully defended multiple high profile challenges to a multi-billion dollar award in NIOC v Crescent under the Arbitration Act 1996 under ss 69, 67, and various other provisions including s 73 – the cases raised multiple new points on difficult issues of arbitration enforcement in courts.
    • [2023] EWCA Civ 826 (Court of Appeal case raising questions about the test for summary judgment for arbitration claims and the role of foreign law expert evidence)
    • [2023] EWHC 300 (Comm) (questions about the finality of judgments about arbitration challenges and when it is too late to seek conditions for an appeal)
    • [2022] EWHC 2906 (Comm) (judgment giving additional reasons because part of the judgment dismissing the challenge to an award was believed not to give sufficient reasons)
    • [2022] EWHC 2641 (Comm) (judgment recasting test for s 73 objections; summary dismissal of the s 67 challenge; and application of res judicata to preclude challenges to an award)
    • [2022] EWHC 1645 (Comm) (rare s 69 challenge and it failed).
  • The Kingdom of Spain in enforcement proceedings arising out of an ICSID award. The case raises novel questions of state immunity and is a test case for other similar enforcement actions against Spain before the English court. The case is reported at [2023] EWHC 1226. Heard by the Court of Appeal in Summer of 2024. Described by the Lawyer magazine as one of the 10 biggest appeals of 2024.
  • Crescent v NIOC– Successfully obtained retransfer of a high value property in Central London owned by NIOC, which the court agreed had been transferred away to defraud a creditor in violation of s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Reported at [2024] EWHC 835. Permission to appeal has been granted.
  • A v B – Pending recognition and enforcement claim for an arbitral award against a state. Raising novel issues including whether partial enforcement is possible of ICSID awards.
  • A v B – Successfully obtained recognition of an EUR 120 million ICSID award against a European state. Various enforcement actions then taken including third party debt orders against bank accounts in England.
Commercial Arbitration
  • Crescent Petroleum in multiple arbitrations against the National Iranian Oil Company in relation to the non-delivery of gas (ad hoc). Successfully obtained a 2+ billion award and orders against high profile NIOC assets in England.
  • Two Middle Eastern companies against European oil and gas companies in a multi billion dollar LCIA arbitrations arising out a large oil field in Iraq.
  • Danone in its successful multi-billion dollar SCC arbitration against its Chinese joint venture partners, which at the time was described in the press as “arguably the largest Sino-West business dispute yet”.
  • Asian state entity in a LCIA arbitration brought by power suppliers under a state guarantee.
  • One of the world’s largest manufacturing conglomerates in its successful ICC arbitration against its Brazilian licensee.
  • Investment vehicle in an ICC arbitration (governed by Iraqi law) brought by an Iraqi telecoms company, relating to an investment in the Iraqi telecoms sector that has itself given rise to multiple court and arbitration disputes involving allegations of fraud.
  • Successfully defended African state in ICC arbitration brought by an Asian state owned oil company for unpaid invoices. A complex quantum claim.
  • Representing a leading multinational steel company in an ICC arbitration about defective steel billets.
Investor State
  • Libya in a pair of investment treaty disputes brought by Turkish investors in connection with large scale construction projects interrupted by the Libyan revolution of 2011.
  • European investors in their successful ICSID treaty claim against Bosnia in connection with the expropriation of two hydro-power plants.
  • Greek investors in a more than one billion Euro claim against Cyprus under the Greece-Cyprus BIT, in connection with the demise of Cyprus’s second biggest bank.
  • Representing Romania in an ICSID arbitration initiated by 44 investors in a mass claim (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/35) under the Energy Charter Treaty. Claim related to measures taken by Romania in the renewable energy sector. The amount in dispute is confidential. The arbitration is ongoing.
  • a large industrial conglomerate against in a treaty (Greece-Serbia BIT) claim against a European state in connection with measures taken against an investment in a mining operation with one of the largest copper and precious metal reserves in Europe.
  • a US investor in a treaty claim (Dominican Republic – US Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)) against Nicaragua in connection with a mining concession.
  • a US multinational corporation against a North African state in respect of taxation applied to the investor.
  • a UK investor in a treaty (Latvia-UK BIT) claim against a Baltic state concerning administrative measures taken against a large bank.