Arbitration in England and Wales: A Look Back at 2024 and What to Expect in 2025

Arbitration, at its core, has always necessitated a delicate balance between flexibility and certainty. In 2024, this balance was rigorously tested and refined through a series of landmark developments. These shifts possess the potential to redefine the course of arbitration, while simultaneously presenting a host of new considerations for those navigating this dynamic landscape.

As we cast our gaze toward 2025, the field is poised for continued transformation. The evolving nature of arbitration law, influenced by both domestic and international forces, demands a thoughtful and strategic approach from all those engaged in its practice. With each new challenge comes the opportunity for growth, adaptation, and the further evolution of arbitration as a trusted means of dispute resolution.

This article will explore several key themes shaping the arbitration landscape in 2024, including pivotal judicial decisions, anticipated legislative reforms such as the Arbitration Bill, and the increasing influence of international factors on arbitration practice. It will also address the challenges posed by evolving technological advancements and shifting geopolitical forces and consider the broader implications for arbitration's role in dispute resolution in 2025 and beyond.

Key Judicial Trends in England and Wales

A Landmark Shift in the Privy Council's Approach

One of the most significant developments in 2024 was the shift in the treatment of insolvency within the arbitration context. In a landmark ruling, the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd[1] overturned the longstanding precedent established in Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2)[2], which had traditionally mandated that winding-up proceedings be stayed when an arbitration agreement existed. Instead, the Privy Council ruled that the decision to stay or dismiss such proceedings should be at the court's discretion, contingent upon the assessment of whether the debt in question is disputed on "genuine and substantial" grounds. This decision is noteworthy not only for its substantive shift but also because, under the principle set forth in Willers v Joyce (No 2)[3], the Privy Council declared its judgment to be binding on English courts. This departure from the Privy Council's typical non-binding status signals a significant change in the legal landscape. As a result, this shift could potentially influence other common law jurisdictions, raising the question of whether they will align with the new framework established by the Privy Council.

The Cross-Border Dilemma

International arbitration, by its very nature, often intersects with multiple legal jurisdictions, presenting courts with the delicate task of balancing competing claims. A prime example of this occurred in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance[4], where the UK Supreme Court was asked to resolve critical issues regarding the relationship between arbitration agreements and foreign jurisdictions.

The case involved two key matters. First, the Court was tasked with determining whether the governing law of the arbitration agreement was English law (the law of the contract) or French law (the law of the seat of arbitration in Paris). The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles established in Enka v Chubb[5], which maintains that English law is the appropriate law for interpreting the arbitration agreement, regardless of the seat of arbitration. This decision underscores the primacy of English law in international arbitration, especially when the parties have chosen it as the governing law of the contract.

Second, the Court addressed the issue of whether English courts had the jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction against Russian court proceedings, despite Russia being the location of one party. In this context, the Court ruled that, although England was not the curial court, it was the appropriate jurisdiction for granting such an injunction. This was because neither French courts nor the Russian arbitration proceedings could provide effective remedies for the breaches of the arbitration agreement. Thus, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that England had the right to enforce the parties’ intentions and issue the mandatory injunction to halt the Russian court proceedings.

This ruling is significant in that it solidifies England's central role in international arbitration. The decision highlights not only the power of English law in governing arbitration agreements but also reinforces the jurisdictional authority of English courts in enforcing such agreements, particularly when foreign jurisdictions fail to provide effective recourse. The UniCredit case illustrates how English courts continue to assert their relevance in the global arbitration landscape, providing clarity on the treatment of arbitration agreements in the face of competing legal systems.

Award Challenges and Related Jurisprudence

London continues to hold its position as a global hub for arbitration, and as such, its courts remain a focal point for challenges to arbitral awards. The Diag Human & Josef Stava v Czech Republic[6] case highlighted the Court’s refusal to entertain jurisdictional objections, affirming that the tribunal's decisions on ratione materiae, ratione personae, and ratione temporis stood firm.

Cases like Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd v Shell Western Supply and Trading Ltd & Ors[7]—involving claims of arbitrator bias and the scope of appeal under s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996—demonstrated the courts’ continued commitment to enforcing fair procedures in arbitration. Furthermore, the case of Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV [8]explored the boundaries of appeal under the Act, providing greater clarity on how the courts will handle challenges to arbitration awards.

Lessons from Broader Litigation Principles Impacting Arbitration

Judicial developments outside the strict domain of arbitration can still have a profound impact on how arbitration is conducted. In Tui UK Ltd v Griffiths[9], the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle established in Browne v Dunn[10], which requires parties to put a case to a witness who has given contrary evidence, ensuring they have an opportunity to respond. While this rule is well-known in litigation, it holds significant relevance in arbitration, particularly in English-seated arbitrations. Tribunals, given their broad discretion in applying rules of evidence—whether under institutional rules or in ad hoc arbitrations—will likely draw on this principle when considering witness testimony and cross-examination.

Similarly, in Martin v Herbert Smith Freehills LLP[11], the Court's reflections on remote hearings have raised concerns about their suitability for complex cases, potentially shaping the future approach to virtual hearings in arbitration.

Legislative Changes Ahead

The Arbitration Bill, reintroduced in July 2024, aims to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 and promises to bring about some of the most substantial reforms to English arbitration law in nearly thirty years. Key provisions under consideration include:

• Codification of arbitrator disclosure duties
• Clarification of the applicable law for arbitration agreements
• Strengthened immunity for arbitrators
• Introduction of summary award provisions
• Enhanced mechanisms for s. 67 challenges

Should the Bill pass through Parliament in 2025, it would undoubtedly mark a watershed moment for English arbitration law.

Institutional Advancements in England and Wales

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has continued its leadership in global arbitration, releasing a set of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Guidelines in December 2024. This move reflects the growing commitment of the LCIA to promote a more inclusive environment in dispute resolution. In the same vein, the LCIA’s new decisions on arbitrator challenges offer unprecedented transparency, which is a welcome development for practitioners and clients alike.

As the LCIA prepares for a leadership transition in 2025 with Kevin Nash taking over from Professor Dr. Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof, there is much anticipation surrounding the future direction of the institution. Under Dr. Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof’s stewardship, the LCIA has expanded its global influence, and Kevin Nash's appointment signals a continued focus on innovation and excellence.

Prospects for 2025

Looking forward to 2025, the arbitration landscape in England and Wales is set for further developments. The Arbitration Bill’s progress through the House of Commons will be closely watched, as its potential to reshape the arbitration framework could affect everything from arbitrator roles to procedural efficiency.

The ongoing retreat of Russia from international legal systems is expected to present new jurisdictional challenges, particularly regarding the enforcement of arbitration agreements involving parties under sanction. This issue will test the strength of international arbitration mechanisms and England’s role in upholding them.

Finally, technological advancements in dispute resolution, particularly the integration of artificial intelligence, will continue to capture attention. Arbitration’s flexible procedural nature positions it well to explore the role of AI in improving efficiencies, reducing costs, and enhancing fairness in complex cases. English courts are likely to play a leading role in addressing the legal implications of these technological changes in the arbitral process.

Conclusion

As we move into 2025, arbitration in England and Wales stands at a pivotal juncture. With significant judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and institutional advancements, the field is poised to evolve further, presenting both opportunities and challenges. As legal practitioners, academics, and clients navigate this dynamic landscape, the coming year promises to be one of growth, innovation, and transformation. For those invested in the future of arbitration, the landscape is evolving, and it is imperative to remain agile and informed as we step into the new year.

[1] [2024] UKPC 16

[2] [2014] EWCA Civ 1408

[3] [2016] UKSC 4

[4] [2024] UKSC 30

[5] [2020] UKSC 38

[6] PCA Case No. 2018-20

[7]  [2024] EWHC 1993 (Comm)

[8] [2024] UKSC 14

[9] [2023] UKSC 48

[10] (1893) 6 R 67

[11] [2024] EWHC 1485 (KB)