header-logo header-logo

27 September 2013 / Rian Matthews , Tom Cameron
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Balancing Act(s)

istock_000016932494medium

Despite recent Supreme Court consideration, the relationship between the Arbitration Act & the Senior Courts Act remains unclear, say Rian Matthews & Tom Cameron

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is the primary source of English law on arbitration. A key principle underlying the Act is the goal of increasing the autonomy of the arbitral process and limiting court intervention (s 1(c)). To support arbitration, however, AA 1996 gives the English courts significant powers to grant interim orders to preserve assets and evidence (under s 44). Yet the exercise of these powers is subject to strict limitations, so that control of the arbitral process rests with the appointed tribunal.

But there is a tension between the limitations on the courts’ powers under s 44 of AA 1996 and the courts’ wide and general discretion under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) to grant injunctions or appoint a receiver where it is “just and convenient to do so”. In 2005, the Court of Appeal remarked that the relationship between the

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll