header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 March 2017 / Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7738 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration Act 1996: key cases in 2016

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Khawar Qureshi QC reviews key High Court decisions
  • Mostly hopeless s 68 challenges dominate.
  • Arbitrator bias context defined further.
  • Emergency interim measures provided for by arbitral rules likely to preclude court relief.

In this past year, there were around 50 reported Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) related court decisions. The most common provision invoked was in respect of failed challenges to arbitral awards pursuant to s 68 of AA 1996 on grounds of “serious irregularity”. In addition, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal both considered (and dismissed) challenges pursuant to the less frequently invoked s 69 of AA 1996 (appeal on a point of law) in the shipping cases of Spar Shipping v Grand China Logistics [2016] EWCA Civ 982, [2016] All ER (D) 67 (Oct) and NYK Bulkship v Cargill [2016] UKSC 20, [2016] 4 All ER 298.

In the case of DB v DLJ [2016] EWHC 324 (Fam), [2016] 4 All ER 298 Mostyn J considered the additional limitations applicable to enforcement of an arbitral

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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll