header-logo header-logo

24 April 2026 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 8158 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Procedure & practice , ADR , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Limits of appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996

247607
© Getty images
Masood Ahmed explores constraints on the Court of Appeal’s powers with regard to arbitral awards
  • Addresses the principle of finality in arbitration, and the limits placed on the Court of Appeal’s powers by the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Covers relevant caselaw including the recent case of K1 v B.

A major policy objective underpinning the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is the need to promote and protect the principle of finality in arbitration. This means that arbitral awards should, subject to limited grounds of appeal, be final and binding on the parties. AA 1996 has 17 provisions which limit the power of the Court of Appeal to give permission to appeal from a decision to the first instance judge.

One example of those provisions is s 68(4), AA 1996. Section 68 is concerned with challenging an award on the grounds of serious irregularity. Section 68(4) provides: ‘The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.’

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll