header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 January 2021 / Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7918 / Categories: Features , In court , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration Act 1996: a fine balance

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
37605
Khawar Qureshi QC analyses the key cases from 2020 in relation to the Arbitration Act 1996
  • Stay applications and anti-suit injunctions.
  • Measures available in support of arbitration.
  • Challenge of awards for serious irregularity.
  • Provisions relating to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
  • Arbitrator bias.

Last year there were 93 reported cases referring to provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The provisions most frequently invoked concerned stay applications and anti-suit injunctions (s 9), measures available in support of arbitration (s 44), challenge of awards for serious irregularity (s 68), as well as provisions relating to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (s 101-103). A highly significant decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in November 2020 concerning arbitrator bias (s 24) which has provoked international debate. The key cases are referred to below.

Section 9

In the case of The Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse and others [2020] EWHC 2012 (Comm) (30 July 2020) Mr Justice Waksman provided a very helpful analysis as to the meaning of ‘matter’ encompassed by an arbitration

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll