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 Lawyers
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 Lawyers
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
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026