1.1 Advantages

England and Wales is a “pro-arbitration” jurisdiction. The English courts do not interfere with arbitration but, as described below, will support the process where required and permitted by law. The local institutions (see below, Section 3) are internationally renowned. Many leading firms and barristers’ chambers have specialist arbitration teams, with different specialists practising not just international commercial and investor–state arbitration but also, for example, shipping, insurance and commodities arbitration. Case law is highly developed and challenges to awards are rarely successful (between 2010 and 2020 less than 1% of English arbitral awards were successfully challenged in the courts). Reliable and well-equipped facilities such as the International Dispute Resolution Centre are capable of hosting in-person and hybrid hearings.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

A common pitfall is that, where no institutional or other arbitration rules are specified, ad hoc proceedings can take longer and be more expensive. The “fall back” provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”, or “the Act”) can lead to delay. There is also no statutory “expedited arbitration” procedure. If parties want this, they must provide for it in a contract (e.g., by reference to institutional rules) or agree a short timetable at the time of the dispute.

1.3 Distinctive features

See above, Section 1.1.

2.1 Legal framework

The AA 1996 applies to all arbitrations (domestic and international, ad hoc and institutional) seated in England and Wales (or Northern Ireland) (legislative references throughout are to the AA 1996 unless otherwise stated). On 25 February 2025 the Arbitration Act 2025 (“AA 2025”), which amends aspects of the AA 1996, was enacted by Royal Assent.

The UK is also party to:

• the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) (see below, Section 14);
• the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927, which covers a small number of additional countries that are not New York Convention signatories; and
• the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention 1966 (“ICSID Convention”).

There are no special courts or chambers that hear arbitration matters exclusively: such cases fall within the remit of the Commercial Court in the High Court at first instance.

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

The Act does not define “international” arbitration. By analogy with the “domestic arbitration agreement” definition, an international arbitration would be one in which a party is an individual whose nationality or habitual residence is outside of the UK, or a corporate entity incorporated, or whose central control and management is exercised, outside of the UK. That said, the “subject matter” of a dispute might also be relevant to determining whether an arbitration is “international”.

2.3 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

The UK ratified the New York Convention on 24 September 1975.

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

The UK ratified the ICSID Convention on 19 December 1966.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

As noted above in Section 2.1, the UK is also party to the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Awards, ratified on 2 July 1930.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

On 31 January 2020, the UK withdrew from the European Union (EU) following a referendum held on 23 June 2016.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on UNCITRAL Model Law?

While the AA 1996 contains many provisions based upon the Model Law, English law has not adopted the Model Law in its entirety.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

As noted in Section 2.1 above, the AA 2025 is now in force. Its amendments to the AA 1996 cover several topics touched upon in this chapter: arbitrator independence (codifying an arbitrator’s obligation to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality); arbitrator immunity (to bolster existing protections); and challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction (if a party’s jurisdiction challenge has been rejected by the tribunal, any subsequent challenge to the court would be by way of a review, not a rehearing). Where relevant, we set out the amendments in relation to those topics.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

Local arbitration institutions include: the London Court of International Arbitration; the London Maritime Arbitrators Association; the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; the London Chamber of Arbitration and Mediation; and leading commodity bodies including the London Metal Exchange and the Grain and Feed Trade Association.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

The LCIA is headquartered in London at 1 Paternoster Lane, Paternoster Square, EC4M 7DX.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

No.

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

The UK’s ICC national committee, ICC United Kingdom, is at 1st Floor, 1–3 Staple Inn, London WC1V 7QH.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

No.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

No.

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to submit to arbitration present or future disputes, both contractual and non-contractual (sections 6 and 82(1)).

An arbitration agreement must be made “in writing” (section 5(1)), which is broadly defined: section 5(6) defines “anything being written or in writing” as “its being recorded by any means”, i.e., any exchange of written communications or communications evidenced in writing. There is no requirement for signature by the parties (see section 5(2)).

Fully oral arbitration agreements are not enforceable under the Act (although they could be under the common law). However, there are qualifications to this rule. For example, if the parties agree otherwise than in writing (e.g., orally) by reference to terms which are in writing, then that constitutes an agreement in writing (see section 5(3)).

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

The usual common law requirements regarding formation of a valid contract apply, including the intention to create legal relations, certainty of terms and proper capacity of the parties.

4.3 Special formalities

There are no special formalities beyond those discussed above.

4.4 Governing law

An arbitration agreement within a contract is distinct from the main contract (section 7) and may be governed by a different law. The AA 2025 has introduced a new section 6A which confirms that, absent any express choice of law, the law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat of the arbitration (section 1, AA 2025).

5.1 Applicable restrictions

The parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to safeguards necessary in the public interest (section 1(b)). Disputes which raise issues of public rights or third-party interests, or which concern matters with specific statutory regimes, however, are not arbitrable (e.g., criminal offences, certain family matters, certain aspects of competition law, insolvency proceedings, and certain employment tribunal proceedings). Compulsory consumer arbitration agreements relating to claims of GBP 5,000 or less are automatically unfair and unenforceable against an individual consumer (section 91(1)).

6.1 Stay of proceedings

A party to an arbitration agreement against which court proceedings are brought can apply to the court to stay the proceedings under section 9 (note that the right will be lost if the party takes any step in the court proceedings to answer the substantive claim, section 9(3)).

Where an application is made, unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court shall grant the stay (section 9(4)). The court may stay proceedings even if the seat of the arbitration is outside of England and Wales or no seat has been designated or determined (section 2(2)(a)).

The court also has inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, which it may deploy where the section 9 requirements cannot be met but litigation management and good sense make it desirable for an arbitrator to consider the matter first.

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

The courts may order an anti-suit injunction, which restrains a party from commencing or continuing legal proceedings abroad in breach of an arbitration agreement. The court must be satisfied that there is a binding agreement to arbitrate, or there is a high probability that an agreement exists (see Transfield Shipping Inc. v. Chiping Xinfa Huaya Alumina Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 3629 (QB) at 51–52). This is an equitable remedy, which must be applied for promptly (delay can operate as a bar depending on the facts of the case) and the injunction will only be granted by the court when it is “just and convenient to do so” (section 37, Senior Courts Act 1981).

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

There are no restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators and any person may act as an arbitrator. The parties may also agree to qualifications, characteristics or relevant experience required of the arbitrators and stipulate these within the arbitration agreement, for example, nationality, knowledge of a specific industry or position held. In Jivraj v. Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court confirmed that arbitrators are “independent providers of services” to the parties and, as such, specifying an arbitrator’s nationality or even religious affiliation would not fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation or render an arbitration agreement invalid.

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

An arbitrator must be impartial (see section 33(1)). There is no statutory requirement for an arbitrator to be independent. The relevant test for bias is whether the “fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased” (Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67).

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

There are no mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

The AA 1996 contains “fall back” rules. The provisions in section 16 apply in the absence of party agreement on the appointment mechanism, which vary depending upon the proposed composition of the tribunal (e.g., sole arbitrator, two arbitrators, two arbitrators and an umpire, or three arbitrators):

• if the tribunal is to consist of a sole arbitrator, the parties are to jointly appoint the arbitrator no later than 28 days after service of a request in writing by either party to make an appointment;
• if the tribunal is to consist of two arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator no later than 14 days after service of a request in writing by either party to do so;
• if the tribunal is to consist of three arbitrators, each party is to appoint one arbitrator no later than 14 days after a request to do so in writing by either party and the two arbitrators who are appointed shall appoint a third arbitrator as chairman of the tribunal; or
• if the tribunal is to consist of two arbitrators and an umpire, each party is to appoint one arbitrator no later than 14 days after a request to do so in writing by either party and the two arbitrators who are appointed may appoint an umpire at any time after their appointment but before any substantive hearing or immediately if they cannot agree on a matter relating to the arbitration.

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

There are no mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process.

Where an arbitrator ceases to hold office (e.g., they become incapable of acting or refuse to act) the parties are free to agree how the vacancy is to be filled and to what extent the previous proceedings should stand (section 27(1)). In the absence of agreement, sections 16 and 18 apply to fill that vacancy (see above, Section 7.4) and the reconstituted tribunal will determine the extent to which the previous proceedings should stand.

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

Following the Supreme Court’s confirmation in Halliburton Co v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48 that arbitrators are under a continuing duty to disclose matters which would, or might reasonably, give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality, the AA 2025 has introduced a new section 23A to the AA 1996, which codifies this common law duty (section 2, AA 2025).

7.7 Grounds for challenge

A party may apply to court to remove an arbitrator on the grounds in section 24, which include:

• circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the arbitrator’s impartiality;
• the arbitrator lacking the qualifications required by the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitrator being physically/mentally incapable of conducting the proceedings (or there are justifiable doubts as to their capacity to do so); or
• the arbitrator having refused/failed to:
  • properly conduct the proceedings; or
  • use all reasonable despatch in conducting the proceedings or making an award, and that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to the applicant.

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

Section 24, which governs challenges to appointments, is a mandatory provision (see above, Section 7.7).

7.9 Removal

A court cannot exercise its power to remove an arbitrator under section 24 unless it is satisfied that the applicant has exhausted any available recourse to the relevant arbitral institution (in other words, a removal procedure under the applicable institutional rules). Where an arbitral institution has already considered the matter and determined that there are no grounds for removal, the English courts have found they should be “very slow to differ” from the findings of the relevant institution, as that was “the parties’ chosen forum for resolution” and such an institution will have “considerable experience” and is “well placed to judge” matters relevant to whether an arbitrator or tribunal has acted properly (see P v. Q [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm)). Furthermore, the Report on the Arbitration Bill by the Departmental Advisory Committee (February 1996) commented at paragraph 107 on section 24 as follows: “[we] have also made the exhaustion of any arbitral process for challenging an arbitrator a pre-condition to the right to apply to the court. Again, it will be a very rare case indeed where the court will remove an arbitrator notwithstanding that that process has reached a different conclusion.” An arbitral tribunal may continue proceedings and make an award whilst an application under section 24 is being determined by the court (section 24(3)).

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

Arbitrators have immunity from any claims against them unless it can be shown that the arbitrator’s act or omission was in bad faith (section 29(1)). This immunity extends to an employee or agent of the arbitrator (section 29(2)), although previously it did not cover any liability of an arbitrator incurred by their resignation (section 29(3)). However, the AA 2025 has now altered the position, omitting the previous section 29(3) and confirming that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability for the arbitrator unless it is shown the resignation was, in all the circumstances, unreasonable (section 4, AA 2025).

8.1 Interim measures

8.1.1 Overview of interim measures

The court’s powers to grant interim relief are limited under the Act. First, unless urgent, the court can only act on an on-notice application made with the permission of the tribunal or with written agreement of the other parties to the arbitration (section 44(4)). Second, the court can only act if and to the extent that the tribunal lacks the power or is unable to provide the same interim relief (section 44(5)).

The court has the power to make orders on certain matters in support of arbitral proceedings, equivalent to those it can make in court proceedings (section 44), including orders for the preservation of evidence or assets (section 44(2)(b)) and interim injunctions (section 44(2)(e)). Further, the court can make orders in cases of urgency as it thinks necessary to preserve evidence or assets (section 44(3)). The powers exercisable by the tribunal are in section 38, for example, only the tribunal (not the court) may order security for costs (section 38(3)). The AA 2025 has amended section 44(1) to confirm that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court has the same powers to grant interim relief against third parties in the arbitration context as in court proceedings (section 9, AA 2025).

8.1.2 Relevance of availability of emergency arbitrator mechanism

Previously, emergency arbitrators (EAs) were not mentioned in the Act. The AA 2025 has now introduced a new section 41A, which applies where the parties have agreed to the application of rules providing for the appointment of an EA and such appointment has been made (section 8, AA 2025). Section 41A(2) confirms that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if a party fails to comply with an EA’s order or directions (without showing sufficient cause), the EA may make a peremptory order to the same effect with a time limit for compliance.

The interaction between an EA’s powers and the court’s section 44 powers has already been considered by the English court in Gerald Metals SA v. The Trustees of the Timis Trust and others [2016] EWHC 2327. It was held that, while the availability of an EA mechanism did not preclude the making of a section 44 application, a court would not act even in cases of urgency if the arbitral tribunal or EA has the power and practical ability to grant effective relief within the relevant timescale (i.e., the time required for expedited formation or EA appointment).

8.2 Taking of evidence

Where arbitral proceedings are being conducted in England and Wales (or Northern Ireland), a party may use the same procedures available in court proceedings (contained in CPR 34) to secure attendance before the tribunal of a witness in the UK to give oral testimony or produce documents (section 43). The court can exercise its powers under section 43 even if the seat is outside of England and Wales or Northern Ireland or is not yet determined, unless the court thinks it “inappropriate” to do so (section 2(3)). However, a party can only act under section 43 with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement of the parties (section 43(2)).

Where section 43 cannot be used, for example, a witness is outside of the UK, a party may also apply to the court for an order relating to “the taking of evidence of witnesses” under section 44(2)(a).

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

The parties are free to agree what happens where there is a failure of the procedure for appointment. To the extent that there is no agreement, a party can apply to court under section 18(2). The court’s powers include revoking any appointments already made and making any necessary appointments itself. Any such appointment has effect as if made with the agreement of the parties.

A party to the arbitration agreement can also apply to court to remove an arbitrator on various grounds under section 24 (see above, Section 7.7).

8.4 Other available assistance

The court may:

• extend time for beginning arbitral proceedings, where those proceedings would otherwise be time-barred because proceedings were not commenced in time (section 12);
• extend time limits agreed by the parties in relation to the conduct of the arbitral proceedings (section 79);
• vary the way in which documents should be served (including dispensing with service) (section 77); and
• determine any question of law arising during proceedings, which the court is satisfied substantially affects the rights of one or more of the parties (section 45).

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

The main source of English law in this area is the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA). The SIA embodies a restrictive approach to state immunity, containing four primary exceptions to immunity from adjudication:

• submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts (section 2, SIA);
• the state has entered into transactions otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority (section 3, SIA);
• proceedings relate to a contractual obligation to be performed wholly or partly in the UK, regardless of whether the contract was entered into in the exercise of state authority or not (section 3, SIA); and
• the state has agreed in writing to submit a dispute to arbitration (subject to any contrary provision in the arbitration agreement; not applicable to arbitration agreements between states) (section 9, SIA).

The burden of proof for proving the exception rests on the party seeking to rely on it.

9.2 Immunity from execution

The SIA provides immunity from execution, subject to two exceptions:

• a state gives written consent to enforcement; and
• judgment or awards may be enforced against property used or intended for use for commercial purposes.

However, note that state central banks and other monetary authorities have immunity against assets held for commercial purposes (section 14(4), SIA).

In Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL v. Kingdom of Spain and Border Timbers Ltd v. Republic of Zimbabwe [2024] EWCA Civ 1257, the Court of Appeal held inter alia that Article 54 of the ICSID Convention amounted to a clear and express waiver of state immunity and therefore contracting states had submitted to the jurisdiction of the UK courts for the purposes of recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards. However, immunity from execution to the extent available in the jurisdiction was preserved by Article 55 of the ICSID Convention.

The Act does not set out any procedural or evidential requirements. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to decide. Section 33 requires the tribunal to adopt procedures which are suitable to the circumstances of the case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so that matters can be resolved fairly. There is a great deal of flexibility, with no restriction preventing hearings from being held in a different country from the seat and no requirement that hearings be held in person (virtual hearings are a growing trend in the UK), or at all. A case may be decided “on the papers” where appropriate (e.g., section 34(2)(h) gives the tribunal the right to decide whether and to what extent there should be oral evidence or submissions). There are no rules to prevent an arbitration continuing where a party does not participate (best procedural practice in this situation is set out in guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) in 2015).

English case law recognises that arbitrations seated in England and Wales are, by default, private and confidential.

There are some limited exceptions to the common law duty of confidentiality:

• where it is dispensed with by the consent of the parties;
• where it is dispensed with by order of the court;
• where the court considers that making an exception is reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitrating party (e.g., to defend a claim brought by a third party); or
• where the court considers that making an exception is in the interests of justice.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

Section 52 provides that the parties are free to agree the form of an award. In the absence of agreement, the award must:

• be in writing and signed by all of the arbitrators;
• contain the reasons for the award (unless the parties have agreed to dispense with reasons or it is an agreed award); and
• state the seat and the date when the award is made.

If the parties were to agree to it, the award could, in principle, be made orally (although the parties would also have to agree that the award will not contain reasons); for example, at the end of the hearing, the arbitrator makes their award orally by confirming which of the parties has been successful. Such an award is still enforceable under English common law, though it is now very rare for such awards to be made in practice.

12.2 Time limit

There is no time limit for making an award, unless:

• an award is remitted by the court (then the award must be made within three months of the date of the remission order, unless the court directs otherwise, section 71(3));
• an award is corrected, then it must be made within 28 days of a party’s application or the date of the award if there is no application (or such longer period as the parties may agree, section 57(5)); or
• an additional award is to be made, then it must be made within 56 days of the original award (or such longer period as the parties may agree, section 57(6)).

However, the Act requires a tribunal to make an award without unnecessary delay and an arbitrator can be removed if they fail to use all reasonable despatch in making an award.

12.3 Remedies

Unless the parties agree otherwise, arbitrators have the power to:

• make declarations;
• order the payment of money;
• order a party to do or refrain from doing something;
• order specific performance of a contract; and
• order the rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a document (section 48).

English law does not generally allow exemplary or punitive damages to be awarded. Arguably, under the Act the parties are free to agree that the arbitrators have the power to award such damages, although some commentators suggest that such an award would be contrary to public policy.

The AA 2025 has now introduced a new power in section 39A for London-seated tribunals to make an award dismissing a claim or defence on a summary basis where there is “no real prospect of success” (the same standard applied by the English courts in summary judgment). However, parties can agree to disapply this provision (section 7, AA 2025).

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

Parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal to correct an award (institutional rules will cover this), otherwise the default position is set out in section 57, which provides that a tribunal may, either of its own initiative or on the application of a party, correct a clerical mistake in an award or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission or clarify or remove any ambiguity in the award. A tribunal may also make an additional award in respect of any claim presented to the tribunal but not dealt with in the award.

A party must make an application for correction or an additional award within 28 days of the date of the award, unless the parties agree to a longer period (section 57(4)).

13.2 Challenge of an award

Awards can be challenged on the grounds that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction or that there is a serious irregularity affecting either the tribunal, the proceedings or the award (sections 67 and 68). Serious irregularity includes the tribunal failing to comply with its duty to act fairly or failing to deal with all the issues that were put to it. An award can also be appealed on a point of law (section 69), although by choosing to arbitrate under institutional rules such as those of the LCIA or ICC parties will waive this right.

Currently, challenges and appeals must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award (section 70). If there has been an appeal or review the 28-day limit runs from the date when the party was notified of the outcome; where the tribunal has materially corrected the award or made a material additional award, the time limit runs from the date of the correction or additional award (new section 70(3A), per section 12(3) AA 2025).

Furthermore, the AA 2025 now limits the scope of challenge where a party to the arbitration objects on the grounds of the tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction, on which the tribunal has already ruled (new sections 67(3B) and 3(C), per section 11 AA 2025). In those circumstances:

• a ground that was not raised before the tribunal must not be raised before the court unless it can be shown that the applicant did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the ground;
• evidence not put before the tribunal cannot be considered by the court unless the applicant can show it could not with reasonable diligence have put that evidence before the tribunal; and
• evidence heard by the tribunal must not be re-heard by the court.

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

Domestic awards are usually enforced by the court by summary procedure (section 66). Where permission to enforce is granted, the award debtor will usually have 14 days from the date of service of the order to set it aside.

A New York Convention award can be enforced in the same way as an English court judgment, provided leave is given by the English courts. The procedure is largely the same as for domestic awards (see below, Section 14).

The time limit within which an action to recognise and enforce an award must be brought is usually six years from the date when the other party fails to honour the award (Agromet Motoimport Ltd v. Maulden Engineering Co (Beds) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 762), or 12 years if the arbitration agreement is under seal (sections 7–8, Limitation Act 1980).

13.4 Cost of enforcement

The fee for an application for permission to enforce an arbitration award in the High Court is currently GBP 78. Lawyers’ fees and disbursements will also usually be incurred.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

Previously English law lacked clarity in this area, but the AA 2025 now confirms that a party can apply to have a peremptory order of an EA converted into an order of the court under section 42 (section 8(4) AA 2025).

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

Foreign awards may be enforced in England and Wales either under section 66 (which provides for enforcement of all awards, regardless of seat) or sections 100–103 which cover enforcement of awards made in a country which is a party to the New York Convention. Awards must be recognised before they can be enforced. The enforcing party must apply to the High Court using an arbitration claim form, supported by a witness statement, applicable court fee, the draft order sought, the duly authenticated original award and the original arbitration agreement (or duly certified copies). If the award or agreement is not in English, a certified translation must be provided. The UK courts only recognise and enforce New York Convention awards made in the territory of another contracting state.

Note that for ICSID awards, the default position is that the English courts will recognise them as enforceable without further review. Enforcement of an ICSID award does not fall under the New York Convention: it is instead enforced in England under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

The grounds for resisting recognition and enforcement of a New York Convention award are, in summary, that:

• a party was under some incapacity;
• the arbitration agreement was invalid;
• proper notice of the arbitrator appointment or the proceedings was not given, or a party was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award dealt with matters outside the scope of the submission to arbitration; or
• the composition of the tribunal did not accord with the parties’ agreement or the award has not yet become binding, has been set aside or has been suspended by a competent authority.

Enforcement may also be refused if that would be contrary to public policy. This is interpreted narrowly by the English courts and usually requires a universally condemned activity such as terrorism (see Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport SDPR Holding Co Ltd [1999] Q.B. 740 (upheld on appeal)).

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

Where the New York Convention does not apply, it may be possible to rely on another regime, such as the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (section 99). Under the common law, in principle, awards made in any other country can be enforced in England. This is done by bringing an “action on the award”, which is a new contractual claim based on a party’s breach of its implied obligation to satisfy the award.

15.1 Applicable to counsel

The Act does not impose standards for the conduct of arbitration counsel, but other professional rules are relevant. Barristers must comply with the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct. These contain general core duties (e.g., acting with honesty and integrity), as well as conduct rules which apply when conducting litigation, although there is no specific reference to conducting arbitrations.

Solicitors must comply with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Principles and Code of Conduct. Again, there is no specific reference to arbitration but they are relevant, e.g., solicitors must not generate false evidence or offer benefits to witnesses dependent on their evidence or the outcome of the case. However, institutional rules may impose express powers to sanction misconduct. For example, the LCIA Rules have an annex setting out the ethical standards expected of counsel, with LCIA tribunals having the power to sanction misconduct.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

The Act does not prescribe specific professional or ethical rules for arbitrators beyond the duty of disclosure (see above, Section 7.6), the general duty to act fairly and impartially (see above, Section 7.2), to adopt suitable procedures and not to exceed their jurisdiction or powers. Arbitral institutions and bar associations have also published codes of conduct for arbitrators (e.g., Ciarb Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct). The IBA’s Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest have frequently been taken into account by English courts, albeit they are not binding.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

There is no specific legislative regime, and third-party funding is self-regulated by the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF). A voluntary Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders was published by the Civil Justice Council and ALF is responsible for administering self-regulation of the industry in accordance with the terms of the Code. All members of ALF, and those seeking to join ALF, are required to abide by the Code but it is not binding on non-members.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

The English Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR Inc & Ors, R (on the application of) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28 caused concern in the market. In brief, the Court held that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) which provide that the funder’s success fee is calculated as a percentage of the financial benefit recovered by the funded client must comply with the Damages-Based Agreement Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), or else be unenforceable. The DBA Regulations contain a number of requirements, including restrictions on what a client can be asked to pay and a cap on sums that can be recovered.

Despite the uncertainty following PACCAR, this remains a fast-growing area in the UK, with funders involved inter alia in the funding of arbitrations and the enforcement of awards. There are now established professional funders and frequent “new entrants” (consolidation in the market has also seen funders being bought out by investment companies). Funders often look to fund several arbitration claims held by a company (“portfolio financing”). There is also a secondary market in the purchase of arbitration awards (i.e., advancing an agreed sum in exchange for a pre-agreed share of any subsequent recoveries following enforcement (or settlement)).

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

England is home to a number of specialist forms of arbitration. Commodities arbitration is a particular strength, with leading examples being arbitration under the Rules of: (i) the London Metal Exchange (LME); (ii) the Grain and Feed Trade Organisation (GAFTA); (iii) the Coffee Trade Federation (CTF); and (iv) the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA), to name only a selection. Recent research by the Law Society also confirmed that more maritime disputes are referred to London than anywhere else in the world, the vast majority of which are governed by English law. The London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) is an association of arbitrators with expertise in all areas of maritime law, and most cases under the LMAA Terms and Procedures are governed by English law and seated in London. The insurance arbitration market also thrives in this jurisdiction.

17.2 Key legal principles

Given the wide range of specialist arbitration referred to above in Section 17.1, this is beyond the scope of this chapter. For an introduction to Commodities and Maritime arbitration, the authors recommend “Commodity Arbitration” by Michael Swangard and “Maritime Arbitration” by Michael Collett KC in ‘Arbitration in England: with chapters on Scotland and Ireland’, J. D. M. Lew, H. Bor, G. Fullelove, J. Greenaway eds., Kluwer Law International, 105 to 158 (2013).

17.3 Types of claim and defences typically brought in that area

Please see above, Section 17.2.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

Please see above, Section 17.2.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR (see above, Section 16), the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill was introduced in the House of Lords by the UK government, primarily to carve out LFAs from the definition of DBAs (with retrospective effect). The Bill progressed to the Committee stage but, following the 2024 general election, it will no longer proceed in its current form and is yet to be reintroduced. Shortly after PACCAR, it was also announced that the Civil Justice Council (CJC) would conduct a review of litigation funding, in which it would: set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party funding; consider access to justice, effectiveness and regulatory options; and make recommendations. The CJC’s interim report, published 31 October 2024, opened a wide-ranging consultation which requested interested parties’ responses to several questions, including on approaches to regulation, capping funders’ returns and the role of the courts, by 31 January 2025. The CJC’s final report is expected in summer 2025.

Also of note is the English courts’ approach to anti-suit injunctions in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. The recent Supreme Court decision in UniCredit Bank v. RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30 unanimously confirmed that an English court can issue an anti-suit injunction to prevent a party from pursuing proceedings brought before a foreign court, in breach of a non-English seated arbitration agreement, where the arbitration agreement is governed by English law.