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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll