The Arbitration Act 2025 came into force on 1 August 2025.

The new Act updates the Arbitration Act 1996, the principal statute governing international commercial arbitrations in England and Wales, does much to modernise the UK’s international arbitration offering.

Key changes include:

Summary judgement

Clause 7 of the 2025 Act inserts a new Section 39A to the 1996 Act creating an express power for an arbitrator (on application of a party and subject to the parties agreeing otherwise) to make an award on a summary basis in relation to a claim (or particular issue). This closely models the power under CPR Part 24 in the civil courts; a summary award can be made if the tribunal considers that a party has “no real prospect of succeeding” on “the claim or issue” or in “the defence of the claim or issue”.

Emergency arbitrations

Clause 8 of the new Act gives statutory force to emergency arbitrations by allowing the parties to include terms in their contracts allowing the appointment of an emergency arbitrator; where such a clause exists, the arbitrator is expressly empowered to make a peremptory order, which is enforceable by the court, if a party fails to comply with the emergency arbitrator’s order or directions (unless the parties have agreed otherwise).

Applicable law

Section 6A of the new Act provides that, in the absence of an express agreement by the parties, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat of the arbitration. Importantly, Section 6A further clarifies that the governing law chosen for the underlying contract of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not constitute express agreement that the same law also applies to the arbitration agreement. A general governing law clause in the underlying contract does not automatically apply to the arbitration agreement unless explicitly spelled out.

Challenges to jurisdiction

Under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, arbitrators may decide jurisdictional challenges, but courts at the seat of arbitration have the final say. A party may challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction in two ways before English courts: (a) before the tribunal rules under section 32 of the 1996 Act or (b) after the tribunal rules under section 67 of the 1996 Act.

Clause 5 of the 2025 Act amends Section 32 of the 1996 Act to make it clear that it can only be invoked when the tribunal has not ruled on its own jurisdiction.

Clause 11 of the 2025 Act amends Section 67 of the 1996 Act and (reversing Dallah v Pakistan) prevents full re-hearings by providing that “evidence that was heard by the tribunal must not be re-heard by the court” and that there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence before the court, unless the applicant did not know and could not with “reasonable diligence” have discovered the ground or put the evidence before the court.

Conflicts of interest

Arbitrators are now subject to a statutory duty to disclose any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality, codifying the test in Halliburton v Chubb. The provision is mandatory (so parties cannot agree for it to be dispensed with). The duty is a continuing one (as well as expressly applying to circumstances arising  prior to the arbitrator accepting appointment) and extends to relevant circumstances of which the arbitrator “ought reasonably to be aware”.

Arbitrator immunity

The statutory immunity of arbitrators has been strengthened. The Act ensures that arbitrators shall not pay the costs of an application to court for their removal unless “any act or omission of the arbitrator in connection with the proceedings is shown to have been in bad faith”. Similarly, an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless such resignation was “in all the circumstances, unreasonable” (subject to any agreement between the parties and arbitrator regarding the arbitrator’s fees or expenses).

Third party disclosure

S44 Arbitration Act 1996 has been modified to allow the parties to apply to the court for orders against not only the other party but also third parties over-

  • the taking of the evidence of witnesses
  • the preservation of evidence;
  • making orders relating to property which is the subject of the proceedings or as to which any question arises in the proceedings—
    • for the inspection, photographing, preservation, custody or detention of the property, or
    • ordering that samples be taken from, or any observation be made of or experiment conducted upon, the property;
    • and for that purpose, authorising any person to enter any premises in the possession or control of a party to the arbitration;
  • the sale of any goods which are the subject of the proceedings;
  • the granting of an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver.

Absent emergency situations, applications should be made only with the permission of the arbitrator or the consent of the opposing party.

28 days after …

S70 Arbitration Act 1996 has been modified to clarify the 28-day time limit for challenges or appeals under section 67, 68 or 69. Under the revised section the 28-day time limit runs from

  • in a case where there has been any arbitral process of appeal or review, the date when the applicant or appellant was notified of the result of that process;
  • in a case where the tribunal has, under section 57, made a material correction to an award or has made a material additional award, the date of the correction or additional award;
  • in a case where a material application for a correction to an award or for an additional award has been made to the tribunal under section 57 and the tribunal has decided not to grant the application, the date when the applicant or appellant was notified of that decision;
  • in any other case, the date of the award.

 Actions needed

Contracts with an arbitration clause will now need to be urgently reviewed.

One change that will need to be considered is whether to include a power to allow for emergency arbitration.

For contracts with an international element, an express election of the law dealing with the validity of the arbitration now needs to be incorporated as distinct from a choice of the seat of the arbitration.

Professor Mark Watson-Gandy OBE is a barrister and arbitrator at Three Stone Chambers and is a member of the England, Wales, the Eastern Caribbean (BVI) and the Dubai International Financial Centre.

Latest news