Proposed Amendments to the English Arbitration Act
The English Arbitration Act of 1996 is revered as underpinning the subsequent success of London as perhaps the world’s busiest arbitration venue. However, as the Act approaches its 30th anniversary, light touch reform is being considered.
- The law of the arbitration agreement: This is perhaps the most discussed reform to the Act. The current law in England & Wales for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement was set in Supreme Court decision Enka v Chubb [2020]. However, the consensus is that the law remains unnecessarily complex. The Law Commission therefore wish to confirm that the law of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. This amendment has been welcomed by local practitioners.
- Confidentiality: Under English law, there is an implied duty to maintain arbitral confidentiality. This is a court developed concept established under the common law. It is not prescribed by the Act. This was therefore one area that was much discussed during the Law Commission consultation. Ultimately however, the Law Commission concluded that the Act should not codify the law of confidentiality.
- Jurisdictional challenges: Currently under the Act, challenges to the court on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction involve a full rehearing. The Law Commission has proposed that rights of challenge should be limited to a review by the court of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Commission has suggested that this change be made via amendments to the rules of court rather than to the Act.
There are several other minor amendments being proposed. But as the above discussion demonstrates, there was little appetite for major change with most London arbitration practitioners feeling strongly that the Act works well as it is. When it passes into law the updated Act will therefore look much as it already does.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
- The law of the arbitration agreement: This is perhaps the most discussed reform to the Act. The current law in England & Wales for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement was set in Supreme Court decision Enka v Chubb [2020]. However, the consensus is that the law remains unnecessarily complex. The Law Commission therefore wish to confirm that the law of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. This amendment has been welcomed by local practitioners.
- Confidentiality: Under English law, there is an implied duty to maintain arbitral confidentiality. This is a court developed concept established under the common law. It is not prescribed by the Act. This was therefore one area that was much discussed during the Law Commission consultation. Ultimately however, the Law Commission concluded that the Act should not codify the law of confidentiality.
- Jurisdictional challenges: Currently under the Act, challenges to the court on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction involve a full rehearing. The Law Commission has proposed that rights of challenge should be limited to a review by the court of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Commission has suggested that this change be made via amendments to the rules of court rather than to the Act.
There are several other minor amendments being proposed. But as the above discussion demonstrates, there was little appetite for major change with most London arbitration practitioners feeling strongly that the Act works well as it is. When it passes into law the updated Act will therefore look much as it already does.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
The English Arbitration Act of 1996 is revered as underpinning the subsequent success of London as perhaps the world’s busiest arbitration venue. However, as the Act approaches its 30th anniversary, light touch reform is being considered.
- The law of the arbitration agreement: This is perhaps the most discussed reform to the Act. The current law in England & Wales for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement was set in Supreme Court decision Enka v Chubb [2020]. However, the consensus is that the law remains unnecessarily complex. The Law Commission therefore wish to confirm that the law of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. This amendment has been welcomed by local practitioners.
- Confidentiality: Under English law, there is an implied duty to maintain arbitral confidentiality. This is a court developed concept established under the common law. It is not prescribed by the Act. This was therefore one area that was much discussed during the Law Commission consultation. Ultimately however, the Law Commission concluded that the Act should not codify the law of confidentiality.
- Jurisdictional challenges: Currently under the Act, challenges to the court on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction involve a full rehearing. The Law Commission has proposed that rights of challenge should be limited to a review by the court of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Commission has suggested that this change be made via amendments to the rules of court rather than to the Act.
There are several other minor amendments being proposed. But as the above discussion demonstrates, there was little appetite for major change with most London arbitration practitioners feeling strongly that the Act works well as it is. When it passes into law the updated Act will therefore look much as it already does.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
- The law of the arbitration agreement: This is perhaps the most discussed reform to the Act. The current law in England & Wales for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement was set in Supreme Court decision Enka v Chubb [2020]. However, the consensus is that the law remains unnecessarily complex. The Law Commission therefore wish to confirm that the law of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. This amendment has been welcomed by local practitioners.
- Confidentiality: Under English law, there is an implied duty to maintain arbitral confidentiality. This is a court developed concept established under the common law. It is not prescribed by the Act. This was therefore one area that was much discussed during the Law Commission consultation. Ultimately however, the Law Commission concluded that the Act should not codify the law of confidentiality.
- Jurisdictional challenges: Currently under the Act, challenges to the court on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction involve a full rehearing. The Law Commission has proposed that rights of challenge should be limited to a review by the court of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Commission has suggested that this change be made via amendments to the rules of court rather than to the Act.
There are several other minor amendments being proposed. But as the above discussion demonstrates, there was little appetite for major change with most London arbitration practitioners feeling strongly that the Act works well as it is. When it passes into law the updated Act will therefore look much as it already does.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026