Challenges and appeals

Challenging and appealing arbitral awards to the English court in England and Wales

This Practice Note sets out the grounds on which a party may challenge or appeal an arbitral award to the English court under sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The Practice Note sets out the timing for making such an application, where to issue the arbitration claim form and the consequences of such a challenge or appeal. The Practice Note also considers the issues of confidentiality and security for costs on challenge/appeal applications. The Practice Note also sets out how to appeal any decision on challenge/appeal and links to Practice Notes on enforcement.

See Practice Notes: AA 1996—challenging and appealing arbitral awards in the English court and AA 1996—starting arbitration claims in court.

Starting arbitration claims in court

This Practice Note considers the general procedure for commencing arbitration claims before the English and Welsh courts under AA 1996 (English and England are used as a convenient shorthand in this Practice Note), the Practice Note considers issuing and filing arbitration

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Conditional stays, intention to arbitrate, and costs sanctions (DKB v DKC)

Arbitration analysis: In DKB v DKC, it was decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) that, when an award creditor seeks to enforce an arbitral award, those enforcement proceedings can be stayed in favour of arbitration under section 6 of the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994). A dispute over whether the award creditor could enforce the award had arisen out of a post-award settlement agreement which in turn contained an arbitral clause. The court granted a conditional stay requiring the award debtor to commence arbitration under the settlement agreement. Ultimately, the stay was lifted when the award debtor did not commence arbitration. In a subsequent costs decision (DKB v DKC), the court made no order as to costs for the stay application despite the award debtor’s success in obtaining a stay. According to the court, the award debtor’s post-hearing conduct showed that the award debtor did not intend to enforce the right to arbitrate which had formed the foundation of its stay application. The court reasoned that while post-hearing conduct is generally irrelevant to costs, where a party seeks relief based on rights it has no intention of exercising, fairness and justice require departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Written by A/Prof Darius Chan, deputy director, Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy; director, Breakpoint LLC; Door Tenant, Fountain Court Chambers.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents