The English Arbitration Act 2025 (2025 Act) took effect on August 1, 2025. It applies to all arbitrations and related court proceedings commenced on or after that date and reinforces London’s status as a premier arbitration destination. The 2025 Act amends the English Arbitration Act 1996 and modernizes arbitration processes and incorporates international arbitration best practices that have developed since passage of the earlier version in 1996.

The 2025 Act includes the following key reforms and amendments.

One. Confirmation of Default Law Governing Arbitration Agreements.

It has long been established that an agreement to arbitrate is distinct and severable from the underlying substantive contract in which the arbitration agreement exists. However, where an arbitration agreement has not included an express choice of law clause, questions have arisen as to what law should govern that agreement. Should it be governed by the law of the underlying contract or the law of the country chosen as the seat of arbitration? The law of the arbitration agreement is important because it is this law that determines questions about the scope of the arbitration agreement and whether it is valid.

Under the 2025 Act, in the absence of express choice, the law of the seat of the arbitration will apply as the law of the arbitration agreement. This reform negates the approach adopted in the decision Enka Insaat Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Co. Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 by the UK Supreme Court in which the court, faced with an arbitration agreement without a choice of law, sought to identify the system of law “most closely connected” to the arbitration agreement. In such cases, where the underlying contract contained an express choice of law, the law selected in the underlying contract generally was held to govern the arbitration agreement as well. In the absence of a choice of law in the underlying contract, the law of the seat of the arbitration generally was chosen as the law most closely connected and applicable to the dispute. Any presumption about the parties’ choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement could, however, be overcome in cases where there might be a “serious risk that, if governed by the same law as the main contract, the arbitration agreement would be ineffective” or by provisions in the law of the seat of the arbitration to the contrary. In practice, the decision led to uncertainty and concern that parties might not benefit from key provisions of the English Arbitration Act 1996.

This revision should help reduce uncertainty and minimize disputes over what law should apply.

Two. Streamlining of Challenges to the Arbitration Tribunal’s Jurisdiction. 

English courts have been involved in challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction in two ways. First, under S 32 of the 1996 Act, the court might, subject to conditions, determine questions as to the tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction. Second, under S 67, a court might determine a challenge to an award on the basis of the tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction. The 2025 Act makes noteworthy revisions to these procedures. First it makes clear that the S 32 procedure is available only where the Tribunal has not already ruled on its own jurisdiction. Second, under S 67, where the tribunal has previously ruled on its own jurisdiction. Here, if the challenging party participated in that process, the grounds and evidence that can be used to bring a further challenge of the tribunal’s jurisdiction in court will be limited. To reduce the number of re-hearings in court and to promote efficiency, evidence already considered by the tribunal will not be re-heard, and new grounds and evidence will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Courts may disregard these restrictions “in the interests of justice.” The 2025 Act also makes clear that, even if a tribunal concludes it has no jurisdiction, it can still make an award on costs, consistent with English law.

Three. Adoption of Summary Disposition Procedures.

The 2025 Act expressly empowers arbitration tribunals to make summary disposition of claims, defenses, or issues that have “no real prospect of succeeding,” providing all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Parties may opt out of this procedure by agreement. Given their inherent power and the provisions of many institutional rules, arbitration tribunals likely already possessed the power to decide issues early, but in practice applications were infrequent and tribunals have seemed reluctant to use their powers for fear of being challenged for apparent bias. By adopting the “no real prospect” test, it is likely more applications for summary disposal will be brought and that more will succeed. As practitioners, we hope that this change will help arbitration become as streamlined and efficient as possible. The change will allow tribunals to narrow issues as early as possible, thereby promoting efficiency and reducing costs.

Four. Recognition of Emergency Arbitrator Powers.

The 2025 Act formally adopts the use of emergency arbitrators, an innovation in international arbitration that post-dated the English Arbitration Act 1996. These provisions grant emergency arbitrators the powers to issue peremptory orders and to permit applications in court for urgent relief. These provisions align the statutory law now with institutional rules such as those used in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).

Five. Confirmation of Arbitrators’ Duty of Disclosure.

Following decisions in cases like Halliburton Co. v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 817 by the English Court of Appeal, and Aiteo Eastern E & P Co. Ltd. and Shell Western Supply & Trading Ltd., et al., [2024] EWHC 1993 (Comm.), by the English High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, the 2025 Act now states clearly that arbitrators have a statutory duty to disclose any circumstances that might reasonably be considered, from the perspective of any party, to give rise to reasonable doubts about impartiality. This duty includes both disclosing actual knowledge and other points that parties reasonably ought to know. This revision is intended to codify the current common-law duty of disclosure which continues throughout the pendency of the arbitration.

Six. Confirming Arbitrator Immunity.

The 2025 Act strengthens provisions confirming arbitrator immunity, limiting liability for an arbitrator who resigns mid-arbitration. These protections also limit arbitrator liability for the costs of removal applications unless there is a showing a bad faith or unreasonableness.

Seven. Powers of the Courts to Support Arbitration.

The 2025 Act makes clear that powers of the courts to support arbitration extend to third parties. Such powers may relate to the taking of witness evidence, preserving evidence, or ordering the sale of goods subject to the proceedings.

Conclusion

The revisions to the English Arbitration Act reflect current practices and are intended to help enhance efficiency, predictability, and integrity in international arbitration. The provisions recognizing emergency arbitrators and expanded court support for arbitration align the English statute with global best practices. Clients and parties involved in arbitration are well-advised to consider the following key takeaways from this revision of the English Arbitration Act.

First, as these provisions apply to proceedings arising after the effective date of the 2025 Act, contracting parties and practitioners are well-advised to review carefully arbitration clauses that call for arbitration subject to the English Arbitration Act. Provisions for an express choice of law governing the arbitration agreement deserve particular attention.

Second, in arbitration proceedings, parties should consider their strategies to ensure they align with the current provisions of the 2025 Act and to ensure they obtain maximum benefit from these updated procedures. For example, they should be aware of the circumstances in which their right to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be lost; in insurance arbitrations and other contract disputes, many issues are matters of law that now may be more likely to be resolved on summary disposition, a process that can save costs and expedite resolution of disputes. Parties also will have more latitude in seeking court orders that can support the arbitration process.

Third, consistent with decisions like Halliburton, parties, and arbitrators, should keep in mind the duty to make disclosures, which has been confirmed to continue throughout the pendency of an arbitration.