UK arbitration developments continue to enhance position as key dispute resolution jurisdiction

New equality, diversity, and inclusion guidelines have been introduced by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) to promote inclusivity within the arbitration community. The Arbitration Act 2015, which recently received Royal Assent, will reform the regime currently governed by the Arbitration Act 1996, updating and modernising it to reflect current practices.

Arbitration Act 2015

The Arbitration Act 2025 ('the Act') aims to modernise the Arbitration Act 1996, incorporating recommendations by the Law Commission. This update will ensure the UK's arbitration framework remains competitive and aligned with international standards. Once the Act enters into force, on a date to be announced, its provisions will extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Read more of our report on international arbitration in 2025

• International arbitration: regional, sectoral and industry developments reinforce dispute resolution status
• UAE: recent arbitration reforms while legacy DIFC-LCIA clause debate continues
• Saudi Arabia firmly on the map as key arbitration and dispute resolution hub
• New digital services and legal developments boost international arbitration usage in Qatar
• Egypt a ‘central hub’ for arbitration in the MENA region
• Investment disputes continue to drive international arbitration developments in Africa
• Southern African states form harmonised arbitration framework
• UK arbitration developments continue to enhance position as key dispute resolution jurisdiction
• French arbitration law evolves ahead of 2025 reforms
• Germany to become more attractive for international arbitration proceedings
• Singapore continues to rise as an international dispute resolution hub
• Continued improvements in international arbitration driven by new HKIAC rules and case law
• India continues work to modernise arbitration landscape
• Significant developments in Japan’s arbitration landscape
• South Korea strengthens international arbitration framework
• China continues to improve arbitration process efficiency and effectiveness
• Australian court rulings strengthen pro-arbitration stance and expand scope of arbitration
• Construction projects and contracts must consider sanctions risks
• New types of M&A disputes will drive up international arbitration cases
• Growing demand for expertise in cryptocurrency related arbitration in 2025
• Major changes crystallising in investor-state dispute settlement
• What the future holds for mediation in investor-state dispute settlement

The Law Commission consulted on reforms to the 1996 Act in September 2022 and March 2023, producing a final report in September 2023. The report included proposals on the law governing arbitration agreements, challenging arbitrator decisions, the power of the courts to support arbitration proceedings, and enabling arbitrators to dismiss claims lacking in legal merit.

The Conservative government accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations and introduced the Arbitration Bill in the House of Lords on 21 November 2023. The Bill progressed through a special public bill committee before falling when the UK parliament was prorogued on 24 May 2024 ahead of the general election.

Key amendments were made in the House of Lords on 11 September 2024, particularly regarding leave to appeal decisions on staying legal proceedings. The third reading of the Bill in the House of Lords took place on 6 November 2024.

Recent developments in the courts – A view from London

Several important legal developments have occurred in the English courts recently. For instance, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales affirmed that states cannot rely on sovereign immunity to oppose the registration of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards rendered against them.

In addition, 2024 saw numerous applications in the English courts for anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, largely relating to proceedings commenced in the Russian courts under article 248 of the Russian Arbitration Procedural Code in breach of arbitration agreements or exclusive jurisdiction clauses. These cases illustrate the various tools that the English courts are willing to deploy to protect arbitration agreements and highlight the circumstances in which is it appropriate to grant relief and the procedural hurdles and issues that may arise.

In UnitCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC (RCA), the UK Supreme Court confirmed for the first time that the English courts have jurisdiction to grant final mandatory anti-suit relief to restrain proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement seated outside England and Wales. The judgment is notable in its robust defence of the Supreme Court's prior decision in Enka v Chubb and its steadfast protection of arbitration agreements. Relying heavily on the underlying reasoning in the Enka case, the court concluded that although the parties had chosen a Paris-seated arbitration, that choice was not in itself a reason why the English court could not or should not uphold the parties' bargain. The Supreme Court dismissed RCA's appeal and maintained the final anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings brought by RCA in Russia.

Another recent case of note is Investcom Global Limited v Plc Investments Limited, in which the English Commercial Court also confirmed that although it was prepared to intervene in respect of a contract in which a London seat had been designated, it would not have jurisdiction over a claim where there was "no good arguable case that the tribunal would find that the seat was London".

Together, these cases serve as reminders of the jurisdictional hurdles faced by parties wishing to rely on anti-suit relief from the English courts and, secondly, the importance of clearly designating both a seat of arbitration in your contract (in the Investcom case)and the governing law of the arbitration agreement (in the UniCredit case).

In Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd the Privy Council considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (BVI). The appeal concerned two competing areas of public policy – insolvency, which seeks to ensure the fair distribution of assets to a company's creditors where a company cannot pay its debts; and arbitration, which seeks to uphold the parties' agreement as to their chosen dispute resolution forum without any court interference.

Specifically, the Privy Council determined whether a company should be wound up where the debt on which the winding up application is based is subject to an arbitration agreement and is said to be disputed or subject to a cross-claim. The court ruled that when a creditor issues an application for an appointment of a liquidator, the court will only stay or dismiss that application, regardless of whether the parties have agreed an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause, where the debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds.

The Privy Council also made a direction for the purposes of English law that a 2014 case known as Salford Estates was wrongly decided and should no longer be followed.

In Mordchai Ganz v Petronz FZA & Abraham Goren, the English Commercial Court decided to publish a non-anonymised judgment on an arbitration claim challenging an award under sections 67 and 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The second defendant objected, citing his involuntary participation in the arbitration and potential reputational damage from disclosing sensitive information.

The court ruled that the public interest in transparent justice outweighed the claimant's confidentiality concerns, referencing a 2014 Court of Appeal case, City of Moscow v Bankers Trust. This ruling highlights that the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings and awards is not absolute. Parties should be aware that, in certain circumstances, courts may decide to publish judgments involving arbitration awards, especially when public interest is significant. Overall, this judgment serves as a reminder that while arbitration offers a degree of confidentiality, it is not immune to the demands of transparency and public interest in the judicial system. Parties should consider these implications when engaging in arbitration.

The International Bar Association (IBA) released updated guidelines on conflicts of interest in the context of international arbitration early last year. These ‘soft law’ guidelines aim to unify the approach to arbitrator conflicts of interest. While not binding without party agreement, they promote best practices and are widely adopted internationally. The 2024 update maintains the spirit of the previous guidelines but introduces significant changes to the "General Standards" and their practical applications. Notably, the "Orange List" now includes additional disclosure requirements, such as when two arbitrators share the same employer or when an arbitrator has been appointed by the same party, affiliate, counsel, or law firm for mock trials or hearing preparations multiple times within the past three years.

The importance of these updated guidelines is underscored by a recent English Commercial Court case, Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Limited v Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited and others. In this case, an arbitrator challenge was upheld due to multiple roles as arbitrator, expert, and advisor, leading the court to find a real possibility of unconscious bias. This decision highlights the critical need for timely and comprehensive arbitrator disclosures, as emphasised in the IBA's updated guidelines.

Insights from the Law Society

The Law Society published the second edition of its annual international data insights report citing data from across major international arbitration institutions. The data shows how common it is for English law to be chosen by parties to govern their cases.

In 2023, 20.7% of cases administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) were governed by English law, making it the second most popular choice after Singapore law. English law was the second most common governing law in cases administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in 2023 as well as in cases administered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). In the same year, English law was selected in 15% (131) of all new cases handled by the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration, making it the most commonly used law.

Further data in the report highlighted the popularity of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) for resolving global maritime law disputes. It is clear from the report that English law continues to be the governing law of choice for parties in international arbitration administered by various global arbitration institutions, and not just those that are based or headquartered in England and Wales. The concerted efforts of the government, judiciary, and legal professionals to keep arbitration laws up to date and responsive to stakeholders’ needs are commendable and have gone a long way towards the reputation English law has earned in being a robust, reliable and transparent system.

Institutional insights

LCIA shows cost-effectiveness and efficiency

Recently published London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) analysis, its biggest ever report, underscores the stability in costs and duration of LCIA arbitration over time, providing predictability for parties.

The report analysed the cost and duration of all LCIA arbitration subject to final award between 1 January 2017 and 12 May 2024, covering 616 cases in total. The report demonstrates the LCIA’s broader commitment to transparency and assisting users in making informed choices when deciding on location for arbitration proceedings.

The report compared LCIA costs with those of other arbitration institutions using their own cost calculators. LCIA cost calculations are typically done based on time spent rather than the sum in dispute, with the key driver identified as the complexity of the case opposed to the value of the dispute alone. The LCIA will apply this assessment when deciding on the number of arbitrators.

While there were methodological differences, the report offered clear and favourable insights into costs and the effectiveness of LCIA arbitration, with the data allowing for stakeholders to make informed decisions about the way in which they want their disputes to be resolved.

The report also provided insight to time frames. The average LCIA duration was found to be 20 months or 12 months where the dispute is valued under US$1 million, with the tribunal typically taking four months to render the award.

The LCIA’s latest annual report shows that LCIA referrals over the last 10 years have grown steadily, with an exceptional, upward movement, and subsequent commensurate downward correction caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of referrals in 2023 totalled 377, of which 327 are for LCIA arbitration, demonstrating a return to the long-term upward trajectory.

Transport and commodities cases continue to dominate the LCIA’s caseload, making up 36% of cases, a consequence of the ongoing impact of global development on energy prices and supply chains. As a corollary, sale of goods contracts are the most common type of agreement in LCIA arbitrations (31%), the majority of which are related to commodities. 

There has been a notable increase in disputes involving ‘younger’ agreements. Almost half of the agreements out of which disputes arose in LCIA arbitrations commenced in 2023 were concluded within the two years before the year of referral. Such a high percentage of younger contracts is comparable to the situation in 2020, which was an outlier year due to the Covid-19 pandemic and its knock-on impact in cases being referred to the LCIA earlier in the lifetime of the contract than prior years. Almost half of the younger contracts in 2023 are sale of goods contracts, mostly involving commodities. 

The LCIA has a truly international reach, with 96% of cases being of an international nature. Seventy-nine percent of cases do not involve UK parties, 17% involve one or more UK party and one or more non-UK party, and only 4% involve only UK parties. 

There was a significant increase in the monetary sums claimed in requests for arbitration pursuant to the LCIA Rules. Almost 30% of quantified claims for arbitration pursuant to the LCIA Rules. Almost 30% of quantified claims were over US$20 million, compared to 19% in 2022. 

All stakeholders are improving in gender diversity in appointments, with the LCIA Court remaining the main driver and almost reaching gender parity in its selection of arbitrators. In LCIA Court appointments, 48% are of women (45% in 2022), 39% of all co-arbitrator appointments are of women (23% in 2022), and 21% of all party appointments are of women (from 19% in 2022). More input is needed from the parties and co-arbitrators to improve the overall percentage of appointments of women (33%), while being mindful of the need to minimise appointments of the same arbitrators. 

LCIA equality, diversity, and inclusion guidelines

In December, the LCIA announced the launch of its equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) guidelines (8 pages / 341 KB) for international arbitration.

The EDI guidelines are described as providing non-binding recommendations for integrating EDI principles across various stages of arbitration, from candidate selection to conduct in hearings and involving all participants in the process.

The guidelines recognise the diversity of users and cases and are designed for flexibility, allowing parties to adapt the recommendations to suit their specific needs and priorities. The guidelines do not feature quotas or mandatory requirements and favour other approaches, such as providing training to LCIA casework counsel who propose arbitrator candidates to the LCIA Court, including unconscious bias training.

London International Disputes Week

London International Disputes Week (LIDW) is a premier forum for the disputes and arbitration community, celebrating London as a leading centre for resolving international disputes through arbitration, litigation, and mediation.

The LIDW 2024 edition took place from 3 to 7 June under the theme "Uniting for Global Challenge and Opportunity," focusing on shaping the future of international dispute resolution. The event offered a diverse programme, including numerous social and networking opportunities, allowing participants to exchange ideas, forge new relationships, and reconnect with old colleagues. LIDW 2024 attracted nearly 8,000 attendees, with over 22,000 registrations for events throughout the week. A total of 109 jurisdictions participated, and approximately 1,360 delegates from abroad.

Pinsent Masons, one of the founding member firms, actively participated in LIDW, including the flagship 'International Arbitration Day' and two ‘member-hosted events’. These events focused on "Reimagining BITs: Recent Developments in the International Investment Regime with a Focus on the UK", and "Navigating the Risks and Rewards of Investing in Emerging Markets: A Cross-border Perspective from India and the UK." The flagship Arbitration Day showcased London's importance as a global arbitration centre, featuring 12 sessions across three host firms.

LIDW25 will build on the success of LIDW24 under the theme "Innovation in Dispute Resolution: Navigating Global Risks." It will explore the progress made in the dispute resolution field over the past year and anticipate future developments. The event will bring together legal experts from around the world to discuss key trends, themes, and talking points in dispute resolution. As a founding member of LIDW and with a presence on the committee tasked with organising the programme and speakers, Pinsent Masons looks forward to actively participating in prominent sessions throughout LIDW25 and hosting arbitration-focused member-hosted events.