Understanding arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996

What is arbitration?

This Practice Note provides an introduction to arbitration, focusing on its key features, including party autonomy, procedural flexibility in arbitration, choice of seat or forum and arbitrators (the tribunal), privity and confidentiality, separability of the arbitration agreement, and enforcement of awards.

The Practice Note also sets out why these matters are important and gives links to more detailed information in each of the specific areas. While the Practice Note focuses on arbitration under the English Arbitration Act 1996 (arbitration under the AA 1996, as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025), the features of arbitration are more widely applicable in ad hoc and institutional arbitration as well as arbitration in other jurisdictions.

For more detail, see Practice Note: Arbitration—an introduction to the key features of arbitration

What is international arbitration?

This Practice Note provides an introduction to international arbitration, setting out what that term is commonly taken to mean. It includes a discussion of the meaning of the word ‘arbitration’ and the term ‘commercial arbitration’. The Practice Note discusses key concepts in international arbitration, including international

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

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents