header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 March 2022 / Shantanu Majumdar KC
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

What difference does 25 years make? The Arbitration Act 1996 in 2022

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
74297
Does the Arbitration Act require amendment? Shantanu Majumdar QC assesses what works and what could be improved
  • Reviews the practical operation of the Act, and looks at Law Commission proposals for amendment.

In late 2021, the Law Commission announced that it is to review the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act). It is no coincidence that the Act came into force 25 years ago in January; on any view it is high time to consider how well it is now working.

It emerged from a long and complicated period which included a false legislative start. Perhaps the most important aspect of that history was the 1989 decision by the Mustill Committee to recommend that the 1985 UNCITRAL Model should not be adopted in England and Wales. The Model Law intended to promote the harmonisation of the laws applicable to international commercial arbitration and one reason for the committee’s rejection was that ‘the majority of trading nations, and more notably those to which international

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
NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll