Masood Ahmed examines what does & does not fall within section 68 of the Arbitration Act
- Covers the case of JKD & GMT v IKC [2026] on the scope of judicial intervention under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which confirms s 68 is confined to exceptional procedural failings.
The recent decision of JKD and another v IKC [2026] EWHC 2031 (Comm) concerned the scope of judicial intervention under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) (challenging an award for serious irregularity). The Commercial Court was asked to determine whether an arbitral tribunal’s refusal to grant interim relief, contained in a procedural order, constituted an ‘award’ capable of challenge for serious irregularity under s 68.
The judgment reinforces the pro-arbitration policy of the English courts by confirming that s 68 is confined to exceptional procedural failings and cannot be used to challenge a tribunal’s legal reasoning or discretionary case-management decisions.
Facts of JKD
The dispute arose from an arbitration concerning the construction
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
