The Arbitration Bill has received Royal Assent from His Majesty the King on 24 February 2025, officially becoming the Arbitration Act 2025. This essential amendment to the Arbitration Act 1996 reinforces London’s status as a leading seat for arbitration.

The second reading of the Arbitration Bill has taken place in the House of Lords on 30 July 2024. This consisted of a general debate on all aspects of the Bill. The Bill will now be examined line-by-line at its Committee Stage, scheduled for 11 September 2024.

On 6 November 2024, the Arbitration Bill underwent the third reading in the House of Lords. The Bill was passed and presented to the House of Commons on the same day.

Arbitration analysis: In a dispute between If Skadeförsäkring AB (‘If Skadeförsäkring’) and NTG Multimodal GmbH (‘NTG’), the Svea Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause in a contract falling within the scope of the CMR Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘CMR’) was invalid. Because the clause instructed the application of domestic law rather than expressly the CMR, the clause was deemed void under article 41 CMR and the award was set aside. In the alternative, If Skadeförsäkring argued that NTG had ratified or entered into a new arbitration agreement by invoking the clause to support an application to dismiss court proceedings abroad. However, the court observed that those proceedings concerned different claims and held that the invocation of the arbitration clause did not evidence an intention by NTG to ratify or conclude a new arbitration agreement. Finally, with respect to costs, If Skadeförsäkring contended that NTG’s participation bound it to the SCC arbitration rules and obliged it to contribute to the advance on the costs of the arbitration. The court rejected this argument, noting that NTG had from the outset contested arbitral jurisdiction and could not be deemed to have accepted the SCC arbitration rules merely by participating to safeguard its substantive interests. The decision underscores that CMR-governed contracts with arbitration clauses must expressly instruct the tribunal to apply the CMR under article 33; a reference to national implementing law is insufficient. It also shows that alleging ratification of a new arbitration agreement carries a heavy evidential burden, and conduct in relation to foreign proceedings generally will not suffice. Finally, the case shows that participation solely to contest jurisdiction does not amount to acceptance of the SCC arbitration rules for the purposes of costs. Written by James Hope, partner at Advokatfirman Vinge KB, and Erik von Zweigbergk, associate at Advokatfirman Vinge KB.

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) restraining Russian proceedings brought against affiliates of the appellant. Although the relevant agreements on which part of the dispute was founded contained London-seated LCIA arbitration clauses governed by English law, the court held that these agreements to arbitrate did not extend to third-party affiliates. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration clauses implied a negative obligation not to litigate related claims elsewhere. Further, while recognising the Russian proceedings may be vexatious and/or designed to circumvent arbitration clauses and applicable sanctions, the court declined to grant an ASI on discretionary grounds: it found that the appellant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of its corporate relationship with the affiliates following their sale. This lack of transparency undermined the request for relief. This decision underscores that English courts will not extend the scope of an agreement to arbitrate to affiliates without clear contractual language and will carefully scrutinise parties seeking equitable relief where material facts are withheld. The decision also reaffirms the English court’s willingness to intervene in foreign proceedings where necessary to protect arbitration, but only where that intervention can be properly justified. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Arbitration Lab has announced that its Global South and investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) certificate course will be held online from 24–25 April 2026. The course introduces participants to ISDS theory and practice while exploring Global South perspectives on international law investment. The course covers topics such as investment protection standards, ISDS procedures, and reform debates. Practical sessions focus on cross-cultural advocacy and careers in arbitration. Participants who complete the course requirements, including a reflective journal component, will be eligible to receive accredited certificates from Arbitration Lab, London. The general fee is £99, with a reduced rate of £69 available for full-time students and academics.

Arbitration Lab has opened applications for its 2026 London Summer Arbitration School, scheduled for 15-19 June 2026, with a 30 April application deadline. The hybrid programme offers five days of training covering commercial, maritime, construction and commodities arbitration. Fees range from £569-£1,589 depending on format and participant status. The school features a distinguished faculty, including Kevin Nash, Prof. Martins Paparinskis, Prof. Dr. Yarik Kryvoi, Prof. Dr. iur. Anna Petrig, Jonathan Waters, Professor Renato Nazzini KC, James Clanchy, Prof. Arif Hyder Ali, Greg Fullelove, Dr. Gustavo Moser, Prof. Emilia Onyema, and Oleg Shaulko.

An arbitration agreement is a bilateral contract between the parties to the main contract, appointing an arbitrator who becomes a third party to the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration analysis: In a ruling handed down by the Norwegian Supreme Court on 30 March 2023, the court held that an insurance company seeking recourse against a supplier was bound by an arbitration clause between the supplier and the insured party. The lawsuit brought by the insurance company was therefore dismissed by the ordinary courts. The ruling reinforces the effectiveness of arbitration agreements, not only in relation to insurance companies, but to third parties in general. Following the ruling, it is now established that if a claim is transferred to a third party, disputes concerning the claim will be subject to arbitration even if the entire contract or legal relationship is not transferred. The ruling may be of some concern to insurance companies or other third parties who do not wish to resolve their disputes through arbitration. Written by Knud Jacob Knudsen, partner at Simonsen Vogt Wiig.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Privy Council recently confirmed that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed because the underlying debt is subject to an arbitration agreement, unless the debtor can demonstrate that the debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. The decision represents a deviation away from the previously held decision in Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd that the court should generally exercise its discretion to stay a winding-up petition so that the petitioner can first establish the debt by an arbitration award, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It provides helpful clarification on the interplay between insolvency and arbitration in that it carefully balances the public interest in insolvent companies being placed into an insolvency process expeditiously (and assets realised for distribution to creditors as a whole) and the public policy that those who agree to arbitrate disputes are held to that agreement. Written by Kit Smith, managing associate at Keidan Harrison LLP.

This Practice Note considers the content of the arbitration agreement with particular focus on the position under English and Welsh law (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should, in particular, be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation and Arbitration agreements—the in writing requirement. Further Practice Notes on arbitration agreements are also available in the ‘Related documents’ pod. Contractual requirements for arbitration agreements Under English law, an ‘arbitration agreement’ must be made in accordance with usual contractual principles. Compliance with such principles will be determined by the law applicable to the arbitration agreement (about which see below). In Black Sea Commodities v Lemarc Agromond, the court was clear that the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement did not alter that general position. It is not possible for an arbitration agreement to be deemed agreed if there was no consensus ad idem to the contract in which the putative arbitration agreement would sit (Black Sea Commodities v Lemarc Agromond). See also Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration

This Practice Note considers the nature and scope of arbitration agreements with a particular focus on arbitration agreements pursuant to the law of England and Wales, although it also discusses the concept from an international perspective and includes some comparative examples from other jurisdictions. For an introduction to arbitration as a method of dispute resolution, see the following Practice Notes: • Arbitration—an introduction to the key features of arbitration • International arbitration—an introduction to the key features of international arbitration • Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration • Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration To compare the answers to key questions relating to arbitration agreements in jurisdictions around the world, please see our International Comparator Tool. Note: In this Practice Note, the discussion concerns agreements to submit future disputes to arbitration unless otherwise indicated. What is an arbitration agreement? The arbitration agreement is often referred to as the ‘foundation stone’ of arbitration as it is, generally speaking, a method of dispute resolution based on mutual