header-logo header-logo

27 September 2022
Issue: 7996 / Categories: Legal News , Arbitration , Profession
printer mail-detail

Reforming the Arbitration Act 1996

The Law Commission has set out proposals to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 by streamlining cases and increasing protection for arbitrators.

The proposed updates to the Act, 25 years after it was passed, include giving arbitrators powers to summarily dismiss claims, made by parties, that lack legal merit.

The process for challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator would be refined, so that challenges in the courts take place by way of an appeal rather than a full rehearing.

Increased protections for arbitrators include strengthened immunity in certain cases such as where the arbitrator resigns or where an arbitral party brings a court claim which impugns the arbitrator, and new provisions to support equality in arbitral appointments.

A provision requiring arbitrators to disclose any conflict of interest would be added so that such disclosure is fully codified in the Act, and the rules on emergency relief would be clarified.

However, the Commission thought the Act was functioning well overall.

Law Commissioner Professor Sarah Green said the Act ‘was a landmark piece of legislation which helped to propel London to its position as the foremost destination for international arbitration today.

‘By making further improvements, we can help the UK to consolidate its status as a global centre for international dispute resolution.’

Nick Storrs, partner at Taylor Wessing, said: ‘Issues such as summary proceedings and emergency relief in arbitration have been in debate now for some time and so ensuring there is a statutory framework which responds to these issues will be very welcome.

‘The potential for summary disposal of claims has long been a topic of debate. If the proposals are adopted it will be interesting to see how they are used in practice. I'm not sure they are necessary or desirable, but equally any mechanism for improving the efficiency of arbitration should be considered.’

I Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, said the Act ‘enabled the growth and standing of our jurisdiction as an international destination for arbitration. However, the world is not standing still.’

Responses to the consultation paper, Review of the Arbitration Act 1996, are due by 15 December. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll