International arbitration

Key Developments in 2025

This year The Arbitration Act 2025 came into force; we have detailed the key changes that have come into force below.

Section 39A which recognises the power of arbitrators to summarily dispose claims. This will be of particular assistance in ad-hoc arbitrations or arbitrations under institutional rules that do not provide for such powers. However, the threshold under 39A is high; a party must be shown to have "no real prospect of succe[ss]" in the claim or issue, or in its defence of it.

The scope of jurisdictional challenges under Section 67 have been limited by excluding (i) objections not raised before the tribunal; (ii) evidence not put before the tribunal; and (iii) the rehearing of evidence already heard by the tribunal; curtailing the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dallah v Pakistan which provided for de novo review. 

Section 6A states that, in circumstances where parties have not expressly chosen the governing law of their arbitration agreement, the governing law will be the law of the seat of the arbitration. The effect of this is to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (covered in our 2021 Annual Insurance Review) , which stated that the express choice of the governing law of the contract was presumed to be an implied choice for the governing law of the related arbitration agreement. Given that other jurisdictions may apply different presumptions, where there is a split between the law of the seat and the law governing the agreement, parties ought to expressly stipulate the governing law of the arbitration agreement.

The Act also (i) imposes an on-going duty on arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that may reasonably raise doubts about their impartiality (codifying the decision in Halliburton v Chubb); (ii) expressly recognises emergency arbitrators and their ability to issue peremptory orders, which are enforceable by the court, where a party fails to comply with the emergency arbitrator’s order or directions; and (iii) confirms that the court may grant relief in aid of arbitration against non-parties including to preserve evidence or property.

There were also a few interesting cases including:

Spain's application to the Supreme Court to appeal the decision in Spain v London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1536 was refused; ending a dispute over the binding nature of a 2013 arbitral award, and Spain's attempt to enforce a subsequent conflicting judgment issued by the Spanish courts instead upholding the public policy of "finality to litigation". This provides further protection against parties who attempt to re-litigate settled disputes in jurisdictions which are perceived to be 'friendlier' to their case.

The Commercial Court in A Corporation v Firm B [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) considered the alleged passing on of confidential information obtained in one arbitration for use in another. In its findings, the Court distinguished between categories of information and considered whether arbitral confidentiality would apply, including information deployed and documents produced for use in arbitration, which are confidential, and the underlying circumstances and the existence of the dispute, which are unlikely to be confidential. This is particularly relevant to disputes that give rise to multiple arbitrations involving similar or connected issues, parties or policies.

What to look out for in 2026

As with other walks of life, AI adoption in arbitration has been keenly watched and hotly debated. Key issues include the preservation of confidentiality and disclosure of the use of AI tools by parties and arbitrators. The Chartered Institute has recently issued guidelines on the use of AI in Arbitration, addressing a number of these issues. Tribunals are beginning to incorporate such guidelines into procedural orders.