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 Note: AA 1996—challenging and appealing arbitral awards in the English 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 claims or claim forms.

See Practice Note:

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration scope in shareholder agreements (Soremi v China National Gold)

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused China National Gold Group Hong Kong Limited (CNG) leave to appeal against the earlier refusal to stay Soremi Investments Ltd’s (SIL) action in favour of arbitration. Although the shareholders’ agreement contained a wide arbitration clause (expressly extending to disputes over ‘non-contractual obligations’), the court held that the dispute must still, in substance, arise out of or relate to that agreement. The proposed appeal failed because the judge had not created a new ‘transacting/non-transacting party’ test: SIL’s limited role under the agreement (mainly to give effect to dividend arrangements) was simply part of the contractual context. Further, the conversion claim did not depend on determining whether the agreement’s reserved-matters provisions were complied with, and the Fiona Trust presumption could not expand the clause beyond what the parties objectively agreed. The decision underlines that Hong Kong’s pro-arbitration policy operates through party autonomy and careful contractual construction, not presumptions that override context. Written by Julien Chaisse, professor & RGC senior research fellow at School of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

Ciarb announces Cesar Pereira as 2026 President

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has announced that Cesar Pereira C.Arb FCIArb assumed the role of its 2026 President on 1 January 2026, succeeding Professor Dr Mohamed Abdel Wahab. Pereira has chosen ‘Trust in a Changing World’ as his presidential theme for 2026. The theme will focus on ethics, professional conduct and efficiency in international dispute resolution in the context of technological change and evolving international relations. He will be supported by the 2026 Deputy President, Michael Tonkin.

Arbitration weekly highlights—15 January 2026

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: arbitration-related decisions from England and Wales and Switzerland, updates from AIAC, DIS, SIAC and VIAC, plus a new LexisNexis Middle East report on global trends in arbitration award challenges. All this and more in our weekly highlights.

England and Wales—functus officio revisited: arbitral correction decisions as evidence in section 68 AA 1996 challenges (Seacrest v BCP)

Arbitration analysis: What is the status of an arbitral tribunal’s decision refusing to correct an award? The court considered this question in the context of an application to set aside an award on grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The claimant, Seacrest Group Ltd (‘Seacrest’), argued that the tribunal had infringed due process in its award in an arbitration between Seacrest and the defendants, BCPR PTE Ltd and Bangchak Corporation Public Company Ltd (together ‘BCP’), by failing to address a submission made by Seacrest for the first time in its written closing—and had then erred again in refusing to correct this aspect of the award. Seacrest argued that the court could not take account of the yribunal’s comments in the correction decision to the effect that, even if it had considered the late submission, this would not have changed the award. The court disagreed. It held that the correction decision, reached under article 38 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021), was admissible evidence on which the court could base a conclusion that Seacrest had not suffered a substantial injustice. The court thus took the correction decision into account in finding that Seacrest’s new point would in any event have been rejected by the tribunal. Written by Natasha Peter, partner at Trinity International and barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.