After a legislative process initiated by the Law Commission, the Arbitration Act 2025 came into force on 1 August 2025, marking a major update to English arbitration law. Here are 5 things to note.

The end of the Enka v. Chubb uncertainty

So far, according to case law Enka v. Chubb, in the absence of an express choice, the law governing the underlying main contract generally applied to the arbitration agreement (Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38).

The change

The Act introduces a default rule: the law of the arbitration agreement is that of the seat of the arbitration unless the parties expressly choose.

Why it's important

If you choose London as your seat, English law will govern the validity of your clause, thus avoiding the unintended application of foreign law that is potentially less favourable to arbitration.

The Summary disposal : the weapon against frivolous procedures

Arbitrators hesitated to reject fanciful claims for fear of recourse for denial of justice, leading to long and expensive proceedings even though it was known from the outset that the claims were not likely to succeed.

The change

Inspired by the state courts' Summary Judgment procedures, the Act enshrines the power of arbitrators to reject in an expedited manner claims or defences that have “no real chance of success.”

Why it's important

This innovation responds to a recurring criticism of the lengthening of arbitration procedures and the increase in their costs despite the inanity of certain arguments.

Practical advice

It is the “stop” button for abusive or unfounded procedures.

Transparency: disclosure 2.0

The stop Halliburton v. Chubb imposes the duty to disclose conflicts of interest (Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48).

The change

The duty of transparency of referees is now set in stone. The requirement for arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that they are aware of, or should reasonably be aware of, that may give rise to legitimate doubts about their impartiality is imperative and applies as soon as the arbitrator is approached, not only once appointed.

Why it's important

This secures the final award; there is less risk of a decision being overturned two years later because an arbitrator had a hidden connection to a party.

Practical advice

When setting up the court, always require a declaration of independence and impartiality in accordance with the Section 23A of the Act to lock in the impartiality of arbitrators.

Powers of the supporting judge: third parties in the loop

It is sometimes difficult to force a bank or a third party to produce a founding document for arbitration proceedings.

The change

The Act amends Section 44 of the former Arbitration Act of 1996 to clarify and extend the powers of English courts to support arbitration. The judge now has the power to order third parties to the arbitration to produce documents and to order third parties to take action.

Why it's important

Many procedures suffer from a lack of evidentiary elements that are nevertheless available. This change makes it possible to unblock the situation.

Practical advice

If a document supporting your requests exists in the hands of a third party — we think in particular of banking institutions — or if a measure must be ordered to maintain a Status Quo before deciding on the merits of the dispute, you should no longer hesitate to ask the supporting judge to order the necessary measures in case of emergency to preserve your rights.

Optimising the review of awards on jurisdiction: no second round

Under the principle of competence-competence, the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, but the state judge at the seat will have the final say. Until then, parties could (i) challenge the jurisdiction of the court before the court ruled on the matter (Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996) and/or (ii) challenge the award made by the court on its own jurisdiction, or on the merits of the dispute, on the basis of the court's incompetence (Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996).

The Supreme Court had opened the door for a comprehensive review. De Novo even though the matter had already been debated before the arbitral tribunal. A challenge under Section 67 resulted in a” Full Rehearing ” before the judge allowing the parties to present new arguments, claims and foundations as well as new evidence (Dallah v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46).

The change

The Act proposes a more restrictive approach to remedies based on the jurisdiction of the court (Section 32 and Section 67). If the arbitral tribunal has already decided on its jurisdiction, even by means of a partial award, the challenge based on Section 32 cannot be brought; only the appeal based on Section 67 is admissible. However, the Act also amends Section 67 and departs from the position taken in the judgment Dallah v Pakistan. Henceforth, there will be no new examination: no new arguments, no new evidence, unless the applicant was not previously aware of it and could not, with “due diligence”, become aware of it.

Why it's important

These clarifications will prevent parties from using the Section 67 remedy as a second remedy after having already sought to file the claim under Section 32. In addition, recourse under Section 67 will only allow for a review of elements that have already been decided by the court. These changes therefore reinforce the authority attached to the court's award as to its jurisdiction.

Practical advice

The strategy is therefore radically changing: do not keep ammunition in reserve for the English state court because it would prove inadmissible before it. If you discover evidence late, diligently document when it was discovered so that you can justify the fact that you are bringing it in after litigation has begun.

‍