header-logo header-logo

The Arbitration Act: If it ain’t broke…

24 November 2023 / Chris Ward , Clare Arthurs
Issue: 8050 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Profession
printer mail-detail
147356
Chris Ward & Clare Arthurs survey (& commend) the Law Commission’s proposals for arbitration reform
  • Focused and practical reforms to the Arbitration Act have been proposed by the Law Commission.
  • The proposals are measured and do not attempt to fix something that isn’t broken.

In 1989, the chair of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law, Lord Justice Mustill, as he then was, recommended that the UK should not adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985. Rather, there should be a new and improved Arbitration Act, which would not simply be a classic exercise in consolidation.

Described by the late Lord Mustill as a ‘complete spring clean’ of English arbitration law, the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) is considered by many practitioners to represent the gold standard in lex arbitri, and the statistics do not dissent. English law is the governing law of choice in 40% of all global corporate arbitrations. A quarter of the Commercial Court’s cases are arbitration cases.

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll