Masood Ahmed & Raghad Hamed examine fraud as a serious irregularity under the Arbitration Act 1996
- Two recent decisions have shown that successful challenges to alleged fraud requires proof that it compromised the integrity of the arbitral process itself.
- It has also been reaffirmed that s 68 is designed as a ‘long stop’ remedy available only in exceptional circumstances, where substantial injustices arise from misconduct.
Although the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) provides grounds upon which an award may be challenged, those grounds will be narrowly construed by the courts. In doing so, the courts will have regard to the need to uphold and respect the fundamental principle of party autonomy in arbitration (see s 1(b), AA 1996 and Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Limited [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm) at [475]-[476]).
The recent Commercial Court decision of K1 and others v B [2025] EWHC 2539 (Comm) provides a helpful illustration of the restrictive approach the English courts will take when
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
