Key takeaway

London arbitration remains attractive to commercial parties because English law treats arbitration awards as final and binding, while the English courts continue to adopt a restrained approach to intervention. Although challenges remain available under the Arbitration Act 1996, including under sections 67, 68 and 69, the statutory framework and recent case law reinforce the finality of arbitration awards and the commercial certainty of London-seated arbitration.

Why do commercial parties choose London arbitration?

When making a choice on a dispute resolution framework, key considerations include costs and the speed of proceedings, which makes arbitration a smart alternative to court litigation. Another central consideration concerns the selection of a legal regime with a strong pro-arbitration stance, among which London arbitration continues to enjoy global prominence.

England’s position as one of the world’s leading centres for arbitration is underpinned by the arbitration-friendly approach of the English courts and the pro-arbitration framework of English law, embodied in the Arbitration Act 1996 and modernised by the Arbitration Act 2025. Combined with the institutional significance of the London International Court of Arbitration (LCIA) in setting standards for global arbitration practice, London has sustained its prominence as a centre for international arbitration through the combined effects of judicial restraint in interfering with arbitral tribunal decisions and the finality of arbitration awards under its legal regime.

Are arbitration awards final and binding under English law?

The English legal regime recognises arbitration awards as final and binding, as reflected in both the LCIA Rules and the Arbitration Act 1996. The LCIA Rules further provide that “the parties waive irrevocably their right to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any state court or other legal authority, insofar as such waiver is not prohibited under any applicable law” (Article 26.8).

Consequently, London arbitration proceedings benefit from a high degree of certainty and efficiency, established by the LCIA Rules’ express waiver of appeal and the statutory confirmation of the final and binding nature of arbitration awards, “unless otherwise agreed by the parties”, as stated in section 58(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996. These measures limit the courts’ ability to intervene in tribunal decisions on awards, reducing the risk of post-award litigation for the parties and thereby enhancing London’s attractiveness as a seat of arbitration.

When can arbitration awards be challenged in England?

There are three grounds on which an arbitration award may be challenged, as established by the Arbitration Act 1996 and amended slightly by the Arbitration Act 2025, in force as of August 2025.

Pursuant to section 58(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the final and binding nature of an award does not prevent parties from challenging the award on the following grounds:

1.    the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction (section 67);

2.    there has been a serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings, or the award (section 68);

3.    a question of law arises out of the award (section 69).

Arbitration proceedings conducted under the LCIA Rules exclude any possibility of appeal on a point of law, as the parties’ express waiver under Article 26.8 constitutes a relinquishment of the right to challenge an arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, challenges under sections 67 and 68 remain available as mandatory statutory safeguards to proceedings conducted under the LCIA Rules.

How has the Arbitration Act 2025 changed section 67 jurisdiction challenges?

The Arbitration Act 2025 introduced significant changes to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (lack of substantive jurisdiction), limiting the scope of admissible evidence and expanding the remedies available to the court. The revised framework marks a clear departure from Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, which provided that a full rehearing under section 67 could be permitted where jurisdiction was in dispute. Under the amended regime, a full rehearing will not be allowed where a party has already disputed the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the tribunal has ruled on the matter.

Furthermore, the Arbitration Act 2025 clarifies that grounds for objection and evidence not put before the tribunal must not be considered by the court unless the applicant demonstrates, with reasonable diligence, that they could not have been presented during the arbitral proceedings. This amendment primarily aims to enhance protection against strategic jurisdictional challenges that would otherwise result in unnecessary time and costs for both parties, thereby reinforcing the pro-arbitration stance of English law. The Act also amends the remedies available under section 67 so that they mirror those available under sections 68 and 69.

How do the English courts approach challenges to arbitration awards?

The available grounds for challenging arbitration awards are notoriously difficult to establish and have a very low success rate in the English Commercial Court. In the legal year 2023–2024, only one application on the grounds of section 67 (lack of substantive jurisdiction) and one on the grounds of section 69 (point of law) were successful, with no successful applications pursuant to section 68 (serious irregularity), despite a significant and increasing number of challenge applications, as outlined in the Commercial Court Report for that year.

Statutory limits on challenges under section 67, as introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, reflect recent case law providing additional safeguards for the court when applying section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (point of law). In SharpCorp Ltd v Viterra BV, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to an arbitration award on a point of law relating to the interpretation of a default clause, holding that the English courts’ powers are limited such that:

·       section 69 must be applied consistently with the principle of non-intervention in section 1(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, such that court intervention remains exceptional;

·       an appeal lies only on a question of law arising out of the award and only where the question was fairly and squarely before the tribunal, even if not articulated with technical precision;

·       the court’s jurisdiction under section 69 is confined to questions of law and does not extend to errors of fact, the admission of new evidence, or the making of additional findings of fact;

·       while the court may recognise or infer implicit findings of fact made by the tribunal, it may not substitute its own factual findings.

This decision significantly limits the English courts’ powers to review arbitration awards on questions of law pursuant to section 69, which, despite its non-mandatory nature and the standard waiver of appeal under the LCIA Rules, remains one of the most frequently invoked grounds of challenge.

Why does finality make London arbitration attractive?

The appeal of London arbitration stems from the arbitration-friendly approach of the English courts and the statutory framework reinforcing arbitration proceedings as credible alternatives to court litigation. The recognition of arbitration awards as final and binding, combined with the courts’ consistent reluctance to entertain challenges, demonstrates a systematic policy of non-intervention in arbitral decision-making. For more, we discussed recent case law on the exclusive English jurisdiction over London-seated arbitration awards.

This enhances London’s attractiveness as a leading seat for arbitration, as reflected in the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, which found that London remains the preferred arbitral seat for 34% of respondents, ahead of Singapore, Hong Kong, and Paris. The entry into force of the modernised Arbitration Act 2025 is expected to further strengthen London’s position.

Our Arbitration team advises clients on arbitration agreements, arbitration challenges, cross-border enforcement and London-seated arbitration disputes.

Written by Barnes Law Managing Partner, Yulia Barnes.