header-logo header-logo

The Arbitration Act 1996: a reflection at 25 years (Pt 3)

05 August 2022 / Ravi Aswani , Valya Georgieva
Issue: 7990 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , ADR
printer mail-detail
89719
Challenging an arbitration award for serious irregularity causing substantial injustice: Ravi Aswani & Valya Georgieva examine section 68
  • Challenging an arbitration award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • The Law Commission’s indication that it will not be considering reform of section 68.
  • A comparative approach relating to indemnity costs.

Arbitration is frequently preferred over litigation as a dispute resolution method for several reasons. One such reason is the perceived finality of arbitral awards. It is common for arbitration rules and agreements to provide that awards will be final and binding on the parties, with only limited circumstances in which an arbitral award can be challenged (see for example Art 29.2 of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules 2020).

Where the seat of the arbitration is England, Wales or Northern Ireland (assumed for the purposes of this article), the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) confirms, in s 58, that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll