Arbitration

This subtopic provides introductory content on arbitration matters for customers who have subscribed to the Dispute Resolution module. It is not intended to be comprehensive. For detailed coverage on arbitration more generally, eg under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), ad hoc and institutional arbitration, international arbitration, etc, see the Arbitration module.

STOP PRESS: This Overview refers to the AA 1996. The new Arbitration Act 2025, not yet in force, makes changes to the provisions in that act. For further information on when the new act comes into force, see Practice Note: When will the Arbitration Act 2025 come into force?

What is arbitration?

Practice Note: Arbitration—an introduction to the key features of arbitration gives an introduction to the topic of arbitration. Focusing on its key features including: party autonomy, procedural flexibility, choice of forum or seat and decision makers (arbitrators), privity and joinder, separability of the arbitration agreement, confidentiality and privacy, as well as enforceability of arbitral awards. The Practice Note also sets out why these are important and gives links to more detailed information in each of the specific areas. While the note focuses

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 Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents