Starting an arbitration

This subtopic provides practical guidance on how to start (or commence) arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and related matters, including taking into account pre-arbitration obligations and other considerations.

Generally speaking, this subtopic provides guidance on starting an arbitration under English and Welsh law and the AA 1996, which applies, with some exceptions, to arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Guidance on related court procedure is limited to the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand). Practitioners may find some of the guidance relevant to arbitrations seated outside of these jurisdictions.

To compare how arbitrations are commenced in jurisdictions around the world, please see our International Comparator Tool.

Matters to consider prior to starting the arbitration

Prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, or when in receipt of a notice requiring arbitration, it will typically be relevant to consider whether pre-arbitration conditions or formalities have been complied with and act accordingly. Guidance on this and other related matters is included in Practice Notes: AA 1996—starting an ad hoc arbitration and

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

IBA publishes emergency arbitration guide for young practitioners

The International Bar Association’s (IBA’s) Arb40 Subcommittee has published a guide titled Emergency Arbitration: A Practical Guide for Young Arbitration Practitioners, to provide practical and comparative guidance on the use of emergency arbitration (EA) as a means of obtaining urgent interim relief before a tribunal is constituted. The guide outlines the procedural framework governing EA, including its consensual basis, jurisdictional limits, appointment of emergency arbitrators within days, and the expedited conduct of proceedings under strict timelines. It explains that emergency arbitrators have broad procedural discretion but must balance speed with fairness, assessing factors such as urgency, irreparable harm, likelihood of success, proportionality, and necessity. The publication also analyses enforcement challenges, noting varied recognition of EA decisions across jurisdictions but high rates of voluntary compliance and settlement. In investment treaty arbitration, it highlights the limited availability of EA, complexities arising from State sovereignty, cooling-off periods, and most-favoured-nation provisions. Concluding that EA has become an integral feature of modern arbitration, the Subcommittee presents it as both a vital procedural tool and an important training ground for emerging practitioners in international dispute resolution.

SIDRA’s recommendations and the Singapore Ministry of Law’s consultation on Singapore Arbitration Reform

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) has recommended reforms to Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994), commissioned by the Ministry of Law to enhance efficiency, certainty, and party autonomy in arbitration. Key proposals include an opt-in right of appeal on points of law, codifying a choice of law rule linking arbitration agreements to the governing law of the underlying contract, and granting courts de novo review of jurisdictional rulings. Gustavo Moser and Jennifer Puntis from the arbitration team in the UK curated and oversaw an analysis by Ervin Tan, Advocate and Solicitor and Director at Adroit Law LLC, who comments on how these measures, while consistent with global reform trends, also depart from English law in important ways. The reforms are designed to control costs, reduce delays, and better meet commercial expectations, though they raise debates about balancing efficiency, accuracy, and finality. Ultimately, the analysis highlights that tribunal quality and institutional practices remain decisive in shaping the arbitration experience.

Courts must continue protecting plaintiffs in Mass Arbitration

Law360, London: When the defense bar came up with forced arbitration, it seemed to give companies broad latitude to evade accountability for legally dubious practices.

CATJ publishes updated AI guidance for judicial office holders

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CATJ) has published updated Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance replacing previous guidance from April 2025. The updated guidance expands the glossary of AI terms and provides enhanced warnings about bias risks in training data and AI hallucinations that generate incorrect information. It strengthens confidentiality advice, reminding judicial office holders not to enter private information into public AI tools and establishing reporting procedures for inadvertent data disclosures. The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, clerks, judicial assistants, legal advisers and support staff under the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals.