header-logo header-logo

31 March 2023 / Jon Felce , Mikhail Vishnyakov
Issue: 8019 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , ADR
printer mail-detail

Arbitration Act 1996: staying ‘best in class’

117272
Jon Felce and Mikhail Vishnyakov discuss proposed changes to the Arbitration Act 1996
  • Sets out and discusses five key proposed reforms to Law Commission proposals for changes to the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Outlines some proposed minor proposals, as well as the areas where no change is proposed.

The Law Commission is reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for changes that may be needed to maintain its reputation for being ‘best in class’.

The provisional amendments (published in late 2022) aim to reflect the trends that have evolved in international arbitration, and potential improvements that have been identified to certain provisions of AA 1996, since its enactment more than 25 years ago.

As outlined in this article, the proposals are limited and carefully targeted. This suggests that, post-reform, many stakeholders will continue to regard AA 1996 highly. The consultation closed in December 2022 and the Law Commission aims to publish its final recommendations by mid-2023. Five key provisional proposals are set out below.

Summary determination

The

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll