Under s 49(3) Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), a tribunal has the power, absent any express agreement of the parties, to make an order for interest on any sums awarded. Under AA 1996, s 61, it has the power, again subject to any agreement of the parties, to make an award allocating the costs of the arbitration as between the parties. Sometimes the costs award will be made after a final award ‘save as to costs’ and following submissions from the parties once they know the outcome of the arbitration. Note that under AA 1996, s 60, the parties are precluded from agreeing prior to the dispute arising that one party pay the whole or the part of the costs of the arbitration in any event and regardless of the outcome. Such an agreement is only valid if made after the dispute arises. What costs can be awarded Subject to any agreement between the parties, the tribunal may make an award allocating the costs of the arbitration. Costs

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the powers the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used for convenience) have in relation to arbitral proceedings under English law and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025 and will be in force on the day of the statutory instrument. Further information is also contained in Practice Note: A guide to the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and the ‘Related documents’. The general principle—minimal interference by the courts in the arbitral process The AA 1996 is underpinned by three general principles, which include ensuring party autonomy in the arbitral process with minimum court intervention. Nevertheless, under the AA 1996 the English courts have certain powers which they can use to support the arbitral process. Many of these powers are capable of being excluded by agreement in writing between the parties, although a number are mandatory in accordance with AA 1996, s 4(1) and Sch 1 to the Act. For

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) provides a mechanism for parties who wish to commence arbitration but cannot do so within a contractually agreed time period (for whatever reason) to apply to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish (English and England are used throughout) court for an extension of time. The terms of AA 1996, s 12 set high hurdles. English courts will not, grant an extension of time lightly. The AA 1996 gave full effect to the notion of party autonomy and abandoned the idea that the courts enjoyed some general power of supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations (Haven Insurance v EUI (t/a Elephant Insurance)). Extension of contractual time limit—AA 1996, s 12 AA 1996, s 12(1) provides that where an arbitration agreement covering ‘future disputes’ provides a time limit for taking ‘some step…to begin’ proceedings—whether this is by commencing the arbitration or by way of a contractual pre-arbitration alternative dispute resolution mechanism, such as mandatory negotiation or mediation, the court

Why would an additional award be needed? If the tribunal had failed to deal with one or more claims in the arbitration (eg a claim for interest or costs) then the parties may apply for an additional award dealing with such specific claims under section 57(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The word ‘claim’ is not the same as an ‘issue’ (as used in AA 1996, s 68(2)(d)). ‘Claim’ is narrower than ‘issue’; a claim may give rise to a number of issues or the claim may be just one issue (Torch Offshore LLC v Cable Shipping). AA 1996, s 57(3)(b) is used only to address entire claims that have not been dealt with. This will usually require some analysis of the arbitral award to see whether the claim was dealt with. In Cadogan Maritime v Turner Shipping, the court warned against an ‘unduly narrow and technical construction of the claims being made’, commenting that: ‘this was an arbitration rather than court proceedings. Arbitration is rightly a less formal process and

Unless the parties agree otherwise or there is an agreed award, the arbitral award will contain reasons for the award. The obligation to provide reasons is no less onerous for an arbitrator than for a judge in court (Compton Beauchamp Estates v Spence). In ABB AG v Hochtief Airport, the court gave guidance to arbitrators in that ‘it must be obvious that the giving of clearly expressed reasons responsive to the issues as they were debated before the arbitrators will reduce the scope for the making of unmeritorious challenges’. Application to the tribunal for correction If no reasons are given or they are inadequate, a party may write to the tribunal requesting that the tribunal correct their award under the slip rule (section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996))—see Practice Note: AA 1996—inadequate award—correcting mistakes or errors in an arbitral award (s 57). The slip rule is to enable the tribunal to correct any clerical mistake or error or to remove any ambiguity in the award and does not specifically

Correction of an arbitral award under AA 1996 Once an award has been issued, the parties and their lawyers should check it thoroughly to see if there are any mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission or any ambiguity that needs to be clarified or removed. Of course, parties will also be checking for substantive errors that may lead to any challenge or appeal, but they also need to ensure that the tribunal is given the opportunity to deal with any mistake that can be dealt with by the ‘slip rule’ in section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The slip rule is an exception to the fact that the tribunal is functus officio once it has rendered its award (ie it no longer has power and authority over the arbitration) (eg H v W). AA 1996 provides limited circumstances in

This Practice Note considers how to apply to an arbitral tribunal for interim and/or emergency relief (or measures) with reference to the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and institutional arbitration rules. The existence and scope of the arbitral tribunal’s powers to order such relief under the AA 1996 are considered in Practice Note: AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—tribunal or court? and AA 1996—interim and emergency measures—arbitration—England and Wales—overview. In summary, and as discussed further below, an application to an arbitral tribunal for interim and/or emergency relief will typically be composed of three elements: • a written application, setting out the basis of the application at law, a summary of the relevant facts, and explaining how the facts satisfy the legal test(s) for a grant of the application. Where an application has previously been made to the court of the seat for relief pending the formation of the arbitral tribunal, the application to the tribunal should explain this background, and in particular deal with either why it is appropriate to continue the relief

This Practice Note considers how to apply to the courts of England and Wales for interim and/or emergency relief in support of arbitration proceedings. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—powers of the English court. The procedure for seeking relief from the court Claims to the court for assistance in support of arbitral proceedings are made under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The procedure for applying to the court for interim or emergency relief (these terms are used interchangeably) is the same whether or not arbitration proceedings have been commenced (although where an arbitration has not yet been commenced, an undertaking to commence proceedings will likely be a necessary part of any application). A claim for emergency relief in support of an arbitration must be commenced with an arbitration claim form in accordance with the CPR Part 8 procedure. The arbitration claim form (Form N8) and a witness statement have to be provided together with

This Practice Note considers the powers of the courts of England and Wales (England is used as a convenient shorthand) to order interim and/or emergency relief in support of arbitral proceedings. Interim and/or emergency relief—the primary responsibility of the arbitral tribunal As a general rule, under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), an arbitral tribunal seated in England has primary responsibility for any interim or emergency relief sought in an arbitration under its jurisdiction. The tribunal’s powers are derived from AA 1996, s 38. For more information on the arbitral tribunal’s powers under AA 1996, see Practice Note: AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—applying to the tribunal. In an arbitration seated in England, the English court has a limited role at the interim (or interlocutory) stage of the arbitration. It is not possible to apply to the court for relief simply because the tribunal will not provide the relief sought. The court’s statutory powers are only available to the extent that the tribunal does not

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) applies where an arbitration is seated in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. In those cases, AA 1996 provides the following categories of emergency powers: • automatic powers of the tribunal, which apply unless the parties chose to exclude them, and • court powers that can be exercised in order to assist an arbitral tribunal seated in England and Wales or Northern Ireland This Practice Note explains both of those categories of powers. The tribunal’s powers The tribunal’s powers to make orders for interim relief are as set out in AA 1996, s 38. AA 1996, s 38 upholds the principle of party autonomy in arbitration by first providing that the parties are free to agree the powers that are exercisable by the tribunal for the purposes and in relation to their proceedings (AA 1996, s 38(1)). This will commonly be done by the incorporation of a set of institutional arbitration rules in the arbitration agreement, or by party agreement where ad hoc. AA

This Practice Note considers the circumstances in which a party to arbitral proceedings seated in England, Wales or Northern Ireland may lose the ability (or right) to raise objections about the tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction or the arbitral procedure. Section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is designed to ensure that parties raise any such objections promptly, and do not keep them in reserve to be raised later (perhaps for perceived tactical gain), thereby wasting time and costs. As Mr Justice Knowles remarked in Balochistan v Tethyan Copper Company (with reference to several authorities), the fundamental principle, or policy, is fairness, and justice in the sense of openness and fair dealing between the parties. From a practical perspective, AA 1996, s 73, and the leading authorities thereon, underline strongly the importance of parties raising objections as promptly, fully and clearly as possible in their arbitrations, and failure to do so may result in losing the opportunity to rely on them if they later decide to apply to challenge the resulting awards

The English court does not generally intervene in arbitrations (AA 1996, s 1(c)). However, there are particular sections of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) which provide for the court to ‘assist’ the arbitral process. AA 1996, s 42 provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court may make an order requiring a party to comply with a peremptory order made by the tribunal (AA 1996, s 41(5)) (or, following the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025), an emergency arbitrator). This provision is designed to assist parties, and the tribunal or emergency arbitrator, in a situation where one party refuses to follow the tribunal or emergency arbitrator’s orders. Tribunals and emergency arbitrators are empowered to make such peremptory orders under AA 1996, s 41(5) and s 41(A) subject, again, to the express contrary agreement of the parties. This Practice Note considers the granting of peremptory orders and the availability of court orders requiring compliance with peremptory orders, and associated matters. For guidance on the early dismissal of claims under AA 1996,