header-logo header-logo

06 February 2026 / Nick Marsh , Alex Bromwich
Issue: 8148 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Jurisdiction , ADR
printer mail-detail

Approach with caution

241908

Nick Marsh & Alex Bromwich on s 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996: three 2025 judgments show that parties should act promptly & plead consistently

  • Section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows a non-participating party who denies being bound by an arbitration agreement to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
  • The courts have apply s 72 generously to protect party autonomy, but inconsistent jurisdictional objections can forfeit s 72 protection.
  • Three 2025 cases stress that jurisdictional challenges must be raised promptly and clearly.

Section 72 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) concerns the rights of parties who are alleged to be parties to an agreement to arbitrate but who have taken no part in arbitration proceedings to challenge awards. Its first limb (s 72(1)) empowers such persons to apply to the court for a declaration, injunction or other appropriate relief in respect of the following questions:

i. Is there a valid arbitration agreement?

ii. Has the tribunal been properly constituted? and

iii. Have the matters referred to arbitration

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll