Disputes Yearbook 2025:
Arbitration

Amendments to the English Arbitration Act 1996

On 1 August 2025, the Arbitration Act 2025 came into force, amending the English Arbitration Act 1996 (together referred to as "the Act"). The Act applies to arbitration proceedings (and associated court proceedings) commenced after 1 August 2025. It also applies retrospectively to arbitration agreements. These amendments followed a comprehensive review and consultation process by the Law Commission. Rather than a root and branch reform, the changes are intended to fine-tune and clarify the law, ensuring that the UK remains a leading destination for commercial arbitration. 

Significant changes to the Act include:

• The codification of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure (section 23A), which requires prospective and sitting arbitrators to disclose any relevant circumstances of which they become aware that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality in relation to the potential or ongoing proceedings. 
• The strengthening of arbitrator immunity around resignation and removal (section 24(5A)).
• The introduction of a statutory power of summary disposal (section 39A), confirming the tribunal's power to make an award on a summary basis (upon an application made by a party) if it considers that a party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defence, or issue. 
• The improvement of the framework and procedure for jurisdictional challenges under section 67. The Act permits the creation of new court rules to prevent the court from re-hearing evidence that has already been heard by a tribunal and to restrict parties' ability to raise new grounds or evidence, subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice. As at today's date, those court rules have not yet been published. 
• The introduction of a new default rule (section 6A) which provides that the governing law of an arbitration agreement shall be the seat of the arbitration unless the parties agree otherwise. 
• Clarification of the court’s powers in support of arbitral proceedings and in support of emergency arbitrators. Orders under section 44 of the Act (such as for the preservation of evidence) are now confirmed to be available against third parties. Emergency arbitrators are also empowered both to issue peremptory orders (which can result in court-ordered compliance under section 42 of the Act) and to give permission for applications to the court under section 44(4). 

The full impact of these reforms is yet to unfold. It will be interesting to observe whether, in the coming year, the English courts encounter novel issues arising from these changes. For more information see our blogpost and podcast on the recent amendments to the Act.

English Court of Appeal rules on the limits of the New York Convention

In Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 928, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal granting an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondent from pursuing proceedings related to a London-seated arbitral award in Lahore, Pakistan.

The court clarified that while the New York Convention governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, it does not permit a party to bring pre-emptive challenges to a London-seated arbitral award in foreign jurisdictions. The English courts maintain exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over such challenges under the Act, with the New York Convention operating only as a shield in recognition and enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions.

This judgment underscores the English courts' emphasis on respecting parties’ choice of arbitral seats and preserving the curial court’s role in regulating challenges to awards made under its supervision. The case is set to be considered by the Supreme Court in 2026. For more information, see our blog post here.

Sovereign immunity and arbitration

The intersection of arbitration and sovereign immunity under the UK State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) continues to generate significant case law:

• In General Dynamics v Libya [2025] EWCA Civ 134, the Court of Appeal considered whether Libya had waived immunity from execution under section 13(3) SIA 1978. Clause 32 of the contract provided for ICC arbitration and stated that any award would be “final, binding and wholly enforceable”. The court held that Libya had waived its execution immunity, though the judges differed on reasoning. For further discussion of this case, see our podcast. 
• In Hulley Enterprises v Russia [2025] EWCA Civ, the Court of Appeal held that a foreign court judgment can give rise to an issue estoppel conclusively precluding a state from re-litigating whether an exception to state immunity under the SIA 1978 applies. In this case, the courts of the Netherlands (the seat of arbitration) had decided that Russia had agreed in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration. The English courts were therefore entitled to treat that decision as giving rise to an issue estoppel. The court stressed caution in recognising foreign judgments but confirmed that procedural principles like estoppel operate alongside the SIA 1978 framework. However, the court also warned that caution is necessary in deciding whether a foreign court judgment has given rise to an issue estoppel, as it may be unclear precisely what the foreign court has decided or what the effect of its decision is. For more information see our blog post.
• In CC/Devas v Republic of India [2025] EWHC Comm, the English Commercial Court considered whether India’s ratification of the New York Convention amounted to a waiver of state immunity under section 2(2) SIA 1978. The court held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, in itself, constitute consent by “prior written agreement” to the English court’s adjudicative jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that any waiver of state immunity by treaty or convention must be express and unequivocal. This case is set to be considered by the Court of Appeal in March 2026 on the basis that it has implications for English law on state immunity beyond this dispute. The Court of Appeal judgment in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL and another v Kingdom of Spain [2024] EWCA Civ is also of note given its determination that foreign states cannot rely on state immunity to oppose registration of adverse arbitration awards issued under the ICSID Convention. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which heard the case in early December. We now await its judgment. For more information see our blogposts here and here. 
• See here for another case in which the English court grappled with the issue of sovereign immunity and found that a lender's claim against a sovereign state and central bank was not barred on sovereign immunity grounds.