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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll