The arbitration agreement

The arbitration agreement is considered the ‘foundation stone’ of arbitration, typically setting out where, how and under what circumstances arbitrations between parties are to be conducted.

This subtopic contains practical guidance on the arbitration agreement and related matters. The various Practice Notes consider the nature, content and scope of the arbitration agreement, the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement, and the relevance of the New York Convention in this particular context. Guidance on how the law of the arbitration agreement may be determined is also provided, as well as content on how to effectively incorporate an arbitration agreement into a contract, the factors that may prevent an arbitration agreement from being upheld, and what disputes may be arbitrated (ie arbitrability). Guidance on the closely-related concept of the seat of arbitration (or arbitral seat) can also be found in this subtopic, as well as information on multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations, the impact of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 on arbitration, and unilateral option clauses.

Generally speaking, this subtopic provides guidance on the arbitration agreement under English and Welsh law and the

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

Uganda court reaffirms res judicata effect of earlier arbitral award and declines to intervene in arbitrator’s decision (China Railway 18th Bureau (Group) Co Ltd v Tumo Technical Services Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: The court dismissed a challenge to a Uganda-seated award premised on a public policy ground that the award dealt with a claim (recovery of contractual retention) that was res judicata having been determined in a prior arbitration. Dismissing the challenge, the court held that it was prohibited by the Arbitration Act, c. 5 (a Model Law statute) from reviewing the correctness of the arbitrator’s decision on the res judicata objection except upon a showing that the decision was perverse or based on wrong propositions of law, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The court’s reasoning also indicates that (in relation at least to Uganda-seated arbitration), the applicable res judicata test is the same as that which ordinarily applies in litigation under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, c. 282, ie, that the claim or issue was already heard and finally decided by a competent court/tribunal in a prior dispute in which the same claim or issue was also directly and substantially in issue between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title. The court also rejected a bare, unsubstantiated claim of evident partiality or bias, as well as an allegation of computational error in the award that ought to have been raised before the arbitrator in a timely request for correction of the award. Written by Hussein D. Gulam, MCIArb, associate at MMAKS Advocates.

HKIAC signs MoU with Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre (OAC), thereby strengthening institutional co-operation between Hong Kong and the Middle East. The MoU was signed on 27 October 2025 in Seoul by the Secretary-General of HKIAC, Ms Joanne Lau, and the Chief Executive Officer of OAC, Dr Abdullah Al Mandhari. It establishes a framework for joint initiatives, professional exchanges and the sharing of institutional expertise between the two institutions. The MoU also highlights both institutions’ shared commitment to enhancing engagement between Hong Kong and the Middle East and to supporting global discussions on arbitration and dispute resolution.

HKIAC signs MoU with Vietnam International Arbitration Centre

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC), formalising cooperation between the two institutions. The MoU was signed on 23 October 2025 in Hong Kong during Hong Kong Arbitration Week 2025 by the Secretary-General of HKIAC, Ms Joanne Lau, and the President of VIAC, Professor Le Hong Hanh. Under the MoU, HKIAC and VIAC will exchange information on legislative and jurisprudential developments and support each other’s initiatives through cross-promotion of events and activities. The MoU highlights both institutions’ shared commitment to fostering dialogue and advancing arbitration and mediation standards across Asia, contributing to the growth of regional dispute resolution networks.

SCC publishes practice note on arbitrator challenge decisions 2020–24

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) has published a practice note summarising the SCC Board’s decisions on challenges to arbitrators from 2020–24. The report outlines the procedural framework for challenges under the SCC Arbitration Rules, the SCC Expedited Arbitration Rules, and, where applicable, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It explains that parties may challenge an arbitrator within 15 days of becoming aware of circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence. The SCC Board determines such challenges, and since 2018 has provided brief, reasoned decisions. The applicable legal standards are derived chiefly from the Swedish Arbitration Act, supplemented by Swedish case law and the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2024). The SCC applies an objective test focusing on the appearance of bias rather than proof of actual partiality.