header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Arbitration Act 1996: a fine balance

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
29 January 2021 / Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7918 / Categories: Features , In court , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail
37605
Khawar Qureshi QC analyses the key cases from 2020 in relation to the Arbitration Act 1996
  • Stay applications and anti-suit injunctions.
  • Measures available in support of arbitration.
  • Challenge of awards for serious irregularity.
  • Provisions relating to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
  • Arbitrator bias.

Last year there were 93 reported cases referring to provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The provisions most frequently invoked concerned stay applications and anti-suit injunctions (s 9), measures available in support of arbitration (s 44), challenge of awards for serious irregularity (s 68), as well as provisions relating to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (s 101-103). A highly significant decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in November 2020 concerning arbitrator bias (s 24) which has provoked international debate. The key cases are referred to below.

Section 9

In the case of The Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse and others [2020] EWHC 2012 (Comm) (30 July 2020) Mr Justice Waksman provided a very helpful analysis

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

Read All
Sponsored by
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll