header-logo header-logo

24 April 2026 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 8158 / Categories: Features , Arbitration , Procedure & practice , ADR , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Limits of appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996

247607
© Getty images
Masood Ahmed explores constraints on the Court of Appeal’s powers with regard to arbitral awards
  • Addresses the principle of finality in arbitration, and the limits placed on the Court of Appeal’s powers by the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Covers relevant caselaw including the recent case of K1 v B.

A major policy objective underpinning the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is the need to promote and protect the principle of finality in arbitration. This means that arbitral awards should, subject to limited grounds of appeal, be final and binding on the parties. AA 1996 has 17 provisions which limit the power of the Court of Appeal to give permission to appeal from a decision to the first instance judge.

One example of those provisions is s 68(4), AA 1996. Section 68 is concerned with challenging an award on the grounds of serious irregularity. Section 68(4) provides: ‘The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.’ Here, reference to the ‘court’ is the court

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll