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
Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Big tech for small firms
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
NLJ this week: Presumption of capacity reaffirmed
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
NLJ this week: Justice delayed, justice denied
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
NLJ this week: The road ahead for employment rights
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: SLAPPed shut?
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll