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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll