header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 November 2022 / Ravi Aswani , Valya Georgieva
Issue: 8003 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , ADR
printer mail-detail

The Arbitration Act 1996: a reflection at 25 years (Pt 4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
100873
Challenging an arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996: Ravi Aswani & Valya Georgieva discuss appeals on a point of law
  • Challenging an arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • The Law Commission’s proposal that no reform to section 69 is necessary, as it strikes a workable compromise between finality and consistency in application of the law.

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 made by the tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement is final and binding on them. However, AA 1996 sets out three routes to challenge an arbitral award: ss 67, 68 and 69 of the AA 1996. Sections 67 (substantive jurisdiction) and 68 (serious irregularity) are mandatory provisions, while s 69 (point of law) can be contracted

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll