header-logo header-logo

Reforming the Arbitration Act 1996

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll