header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

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

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
11 March 2022 / Shantanu Majumdar KC
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail
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
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll