English Arbitration Act 2025: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How to Respond

A TRW Law Firm deep dive for boards, GCs, and arbitration practitioners in Bangladesh, the UK, the GCC, and beyond.

Executive Summary

On 24 February 2025, the English Arbitration Act 2025 received Royal Assent, completing a multi-year reform program led by the Law Commission to modernise the Arbitration Act 1996 without dismantling its core strengths. The 2025 Act is a surgical upgrade, not an overhaul. Its headline moves: a default rule that the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement; a statutory duty of disclosure for arbitrators; expanded arbitrator immunity; summary dismissal powers; stronger enforcement of emergency arbitrator relief; clarified court powers against third parties; streamlined jurisdiction challenges (narrowing Section 67 rehearings and gating Section 32); a cleaner costs jurisdiction even where substantive jurisdiction is lacking; clearer 28-day clock rules under Section 70; appeals pathway housekeeping; and the removal of dormant domestic-arbitration provisions.

For in-house teams, the Act brings predictability, efficiency, and often lower friction—if you update your clauses, playbooks, and procedural strategies accordingly. For tribunals and counsel, it rebalances case management in favour of focus (summary disposal), transparency (disclosure duty), and enforceability (cleaner jurisdiction tracks and emergency relief). For international users who seat arbitrations in London, the message is clear: the UK remains staunchly pro-arbitration, with rules that travel well for cross-border disputes.

Key takeaway: Treat the 2025 Act as a performance tune for London-seated cases. The biggest wins will come from proactive drafting (separately specifying governing law of the arbitration agreement), front-loaded case strategy (summary dismissal readiness, emergency relief pathways), and discipline in jurisdiction challenges.

1) Context and Timing: What Comes Into Force, and When?

• Royal Assent: 24 February 2025.
• Commencement: The Act will enter into force by regulations “as soon as practicable.” It will apply prospectively to arbitrations and related court proceedings commencing after the entry-into-force date. Ongoing proceedings remain under the 1996 Act’s current framework until commencement takes effect.
• Structure: The 2025 Act is not standalone; it amends the Arbitration Act 1996 through 18 clauses.
• Policy frame: The reform follows staged consultations (2022–2023) and a Final Report (September 2023). The aim: keep England & Wales at the top tier of global seats while matching or outpacing refinements in other arbitration hubs.

Practical note: If you are mid-arbitration, these changes do not retro-apply. If you are about to file or revising templates, build the 2025 features in now so you are “future-proofed” for commencement.

2) The Big Picture: Refinements, Not a Revolution

The 1996 Act is universally praised for being clear, party-autonomy driven, and enforcement-minded. The Law Commission favoured incremental change: delete friction, codify best practice, and clarify grey areas that generated cost or delay. That philosophy explains:

• Default law of the arbitration agreement = law of the seat (new Section 6A): less fighting over which law governs separability/validity and fewer detours into choice-of-law metaphysics.
• Statutory duty of disclosure (new Section 23A): Halliburton-style expectations are now text, not just case law.
• Immunity round-out: Reasonable resignations and removal applications won’t turn arbitrators into cost targets.
• Summary dismissal power (new Section 39A): a statutory basis to bin claims/issues with “no real prospect of success.”
• Emergency arbitrator enforcement parity: Section 41/42/44 machinery extends to emergency relief.
• Section 44 clarifications on third parties: Courts’ support powers expressly bite against non-parties where needed.
• Jurisdiction challenges streamlined: Section 32 is not a second bite if the tribunal already ruled; Section 67 is not a full rehearing save for limited “reasonable diligence” exceptions.
• Costs despite no jurisdiction: Tribunals can still award costs up to the point jurisdiction is declined.
• Section 70 clock clarity: The 28-day timer now has clean start lines across corrections, additional awards, and review processes.
• Appeals housekeeping: Confirms that appeals to the Court of Appeal are available across Part 1 as previously understood, with permission requirements only where the Act expressly says so.
• Domestic arbitration deadwood removed: Sections 85–88 tidied away.

3) Key Reform #1 — Law of the Seat as the Default Law of the Arbitration Agreement (Section 6A)

What changed: Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement. A general governing-law clause for the main contract does not automatically extend to the arbitration agreement.

Why it matters:

• Less preliminary warfare: Parties previously litigated whether the arbitration clause followed the contract law (e.g., Enka v Chubb) or the seat. The default now anchors to the seat—predictable, simple, and aligned with institutional practice favouring seat-centric logic.
• Better separability hygiene: Validity, scope, and non-signatory questions are more straightforward when the clause’s law is pre-agreed or defaults to the seat’s law.
• Drafting opportunity: You can still pick another law—but say so explicitly. That includes hybrid structures (e.g., English seat, New York governing law of the arbitration agreement).

TRW drafting tip: In your clause bank, add a line:

“The law governing the arbitration agreement shall be the law of [Seat jurisdiction], unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing.”
Better still, state it expressly in each contract to avoid ambiguity.

4) Key Reform #2 — Arbitrators’ Statutory Duty of Disclosure (Section 23A)

What changed: The arbitrator must disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality, covering what they know or ought reasonably to be aware of.

Why it matters:

• Clarity: Case law standards (e.g., Halliburton v Chubb) become statute, promoting uniformity and lowering challenge risk.
• Ongoing duty: Disclosures aren’t one-and-done; arbitrators must keep monitoring and disclosing throughout.
• Pragmatism: The “ought reasonably to be aware” threshold pushes arbitrators to run sensible checks on overlaps with counsel, experts, and related proceedings.

TRW practice point: Build a disclosure protocol into PO1 (Procedural Order No. 1): define periodic refreshes and a mechanism for addressing new disclosures swiftly and proportionately.

5) Key Reform #3 — Expanded Arbitrator Immunity (Resignation and Removal Costs)

What changed:

• Resignations: Arbitrators aren’t liable merely for resigning unless resignation was unreasonable.
• Removal applications: Arbitrators are generally not personally liable for costs of court applications to remove them absent bad faith.

Why it matters: This reduces tactical pressure on arbitrators through cost threats and helps tribunals manage situations where an arbitrator should step down without personal financial risk. It supports independence and integrity.

For parties: Frivolous removal gambits are now less attractive. Focus shifts to substance over tactics.

6) Key Reform #4 — Summary Dismissal (Section 39A)

What changed: Tribunals may summarily dismiss a claim, defence, or issue that has no real prospect of success, after giving parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Parties can opt out, but the default is opt-in.

Why it matters:

• Efficiency: A statutory basis emboldens tribunals to strike out plainly unmeritorious positions without fear of “due process” ambushes later.
• Strategy: Expect earlier “triage” submissions. Counsel must prepare focused, evidentially anchored cases from the outset.
• Cost control: Front-loads merits filtering and avoids sprawling discovery on points that cannot succeed.

TRW playbook:

• Propose a short, staged summary procedure in PO1 for issues suitable for early determination.
• Calibrate page/time limits and define the evidentiary threshold for “no real prospect.”

7) Key Reform #5 — Emergency Arbitrators: Enforcement Parity

What changed: The court enforcement machinery (e.g., peremptory orders under s.41; enforcement under s.42; support under s.44) is expressly available to emergency arbitrators on the same footing as to constituted tribunals.

Why it matters:

• Urgency with teeth: Asset-freezes, evidence preservation, and anti-sabotage measures granted by emergency arbitrators are now confidently enforceable.
• Institutional harmony: Many rules provide emergency arbitrators; English law now meets those frameworks halfway.

TRW tip: For transactions with counterparty flight risk or perishable evidence, choose a rule set with emergency arbitrator provisions and seat in England; draft the arbitration clause to expressly endorse emergency measures.

8) Key Reform #6 — Court Powers Against Third Parties (Section 44 clarified)

What changed: Courts’ supportive powers under Section 44—witness evidence, evidence preservation, property orders, interim injunctions, receivers—are clarified to apply against third parties too.

Why it matters: In real-world disputes, critical data or property often sits with banks, custodians, subcontractors, cloud providers. The clarified reach against non-parties strengthens tribunals’ and courts’ ability to preserve the record and prevent dissipation.

Operational move: When planning disclosure and preservation, identify third-party repositories early and build a Section 44 track into your timetable.

9) Key Reform #7 — Jurisdiction Challenges: Section 32 & Section 67 Streamlined

Section 32 (pre-ruling court determination):

• New gate: If the tribunal has already ruled on its own jurisdiction, Section 32 cannot be used. Pre-ruling only.

Section 67 (post-award/post-ruling challenge):

• No automatic full rehearing. The court must not re-hear evidence already heard by the tribunal; no new grounds/evidence unless the applicant didn’t know and couldn’t, with reasonable diligence, have known.

Why it matters:

• Less duplication: Parties can’t relitigate jurisdiction wholesale as of right.
• Speed & cost gains: Narrowing to exceptional new material limits Section 67 as a de facto second trial.
• Kompetenz-kompetenz respected: Tribunals’ procedural work deserves deference, save for bona fide new grounds.

TRW counsel note:

• Treat jurisdiction objections as front-loaded battles—marshal your evidence early; don’t bank on a Section 67 reset.
• Consider partial awards on jurisdiction if that helps sequencing and eventual enforceability.

10) Key Reform #8 — Costs Awards Even Where Jurisdiction Is Lacking

What changed: A tribunal that lacks substantive jurisdiction may still award costs incurred up to that point.

Why it matters: It deters tactical referrals that waste time and money; parties who launch or resist proceedings that fail jurisdictionally may still face costs exposure.

For case budgets: Build contingencies for costs orders even in jurisdictional skirmishes.

11) Key Reform #9 — Section 70: Clean 28-Day Clocks

What changed: The Act clarifies when the 28-day time limit for challenges/appeals starts:

• After any arbitral appeal/review: from the notification of the result.
• After material correction or additional award (s.57): from the date of correction/addition.
• If a material s.57 application is refused: from the notification of refusal.
• Otherwise: from the date of the award.

Why it matters: Ends mini-satellite disputes over the start gun; parties can calendar with confidence.

12) Key Reform #10 — Appeals Pathway & Domestic Provisions Cleanup

• Appeals housekeeping: Confirms the availability of appeals to the Court of Appeal across Part 1, with permission required only where the Act explicitly says so—harmonising with previous judicial correction of a drafting slip.
• Domestic arbitration provisions repealed: Sections 85–88 (never materially in force) are removed. No practical loss, just less clutter.

13) What This Means for Your Clause Bank (Immediate Drafting Fixes)

1. Seat and law of the arbitration agreement:

• Add an explicit sub-clause specifying the law governing the arbitration agreement. Default is seat law now—but clarity is best.

1. Emergency relief:

• Where relevant, choose rules with robust emergency arbitrator provisions and confirm seat = England to leverage enforcement parity.

1. Summary dismissal architecture:

• Either embrace Section 39A and draft a short-form protocol (page limits, timetable) or opt out with reasons (rare).

1. Disclosure protocol:

• Bake in expectations around continuous arbitrator disclosures and a swift process for handling them in PO1.

1. Section 44 third parties:

• Acknowledge that parties may seek third-party orders; pre-tag potential repositories (banks, data hosts, affiliates).

1. Jurisdiction sequencing:

• Clarify that if the tribunal rules first, Section 32 won’t be used; parties preserve Section 67 within narrowed lanes.

Internal resource: See TRW’s overview of International Arbitration & Enforcement for model clauses and seat strategy guidance.

14) Procedural Playbook Under the 2025 Act (PO1-Ready)

A. Issues List & Summary Dismissal Track

• Adopt a joint issues list by Week 4.
• Permit Section 39A applications on discrete issues any time before expert memorials, with tight page and time limits.
• Require the tribunal to explain briefly why the “no real prospect” test is or isn’t met.

B. Evidence Preservation & Third Parties

• Identify third-party custodians early; pre-clear Section 44 applications mechanics (notice, return date, preservation scope).
• Map emergency arbitrator pathway for urgent relief.

C. Disclosure & Conflicts

• Set a rolling disclosure cadence for arbitrators (e.g., at appointment; pre-CMC; pre-hearing).
• Provide a non-contentious channel to raise and resolve disclosure concerns quickly.

D. Jurisdiction Protocol

• If jurisdiction is contested, agree whether it’s heard as a preliminary issue (possible partial award).
• Record that Section 32 is pre-ruling only; Section 67 is limited post-ruling.

E. Cybersecurity & Confidentiality

• Mandate encrypted platforms, access control, and password protocols; fix virtual hearing guardrails.
• Clarify any AI usage boundaries by the parties and tribunal (admin assistance vs. adjudication judgment).

F. Costs Discipline

• Encourage costs-follow-the-event presumptions with discretion for conduct; invite parties to track behavior impacting costs.

15) Sector Notes: How the Reforms Play Differently

Construction & Infrastructure

• Summary dismissal can strip weak delay/variation sub-issues early, narrowing expert battles.
• Third-party orders help corral documents from subcontractors and project managers.

Energy & Resources

• Emergency relief enforcement parity will matter for commodity flows, off-take, and facility access disputes.
• Jurisdiction discipline reduces temptation to spin wheels in contract/consent quarrels.

Banking & Derivatives

• Section 6A (seat law = clause law) brings clarity to non-signatory and assignment/novation fights.
• Section 44 third-party powers support targeted orders to custodian banks.

Technology & Data

• Emergency and third-party tools help preserve cloud-hosted evidence; PO1 should specify export formats and audit logs.
• Summary dismissal can strike out legally untenable IP/license positions before deep discovery.

16) Cross-Border Perspective: Bangladesh, London, Dubai

For Bangladesh-headquartered corporates:

• London remains a first-class seat with enhanced predictability. If your counterparty sits in Europe/GCC/Asia, the Section 6A default reduces clause fights; summary dismissal and third-party powers reduce cost bleed.

For London-seated, Dubai-connected deals:

• Emergency arbitrator enforcement parity under English law pairs well with institutional emergency regimes often used in regional contracts; plan asset-preservation and evidence-hold orders in flight plans.

For sovereigns/SOEs:

• Expect tribunals and courts to press for candour and clarity early; the new jurisdiction lanes and costs powers incentivise front-loaded transparency.

17) FAQs for Boards and GCs

Q1: Do we still need to specify the law of the arbitration agreement?
Yes. The default is the seat’s law, but specifying removes any doubt—especially in complex finance or multi-tier structures.

Q2: Will summary dismissal trigger due-process challenges?
The statute anticipates this concern: parties must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. With proportionate procedure, challenges should be rare.

Q3: Can we opt out of summary dismissal?
Yes. But consider why. Most users will benefit from a narrow, calibrated early-disposal tool.

Q4: Are emergency arbitrator orders truly enforceable now?
They have clearer parity with tribunal orders under s.41/s.42/s.44—making non-compliance riskier.

Q5: How much harder is a Section 67 challenge now?
You face a narrower runway: no re-hearing of evidence already heard; no new grounds/evidence unless reasonable diligence couldn’t have surfaced them earlier.

Q6: Can we still recover costs if the tribunal says “no jurisdiction”?
Yes. The tribunal can award costs up to that point—good news against tactical filings.

Q7: What should we change in our templates today?
Add explicit law of the arbitration agreement, acknowledge summary dismissal, reference emergency relief, and plan third-party support. Update PO1 templates accordingly.

18) GC Action Plan (90-Day Checklist)

• Audit your clause bank (MSAs, JVs, finance docs): add express arbitration-agreement law; endorse emergency relief; signal summary dismissal use.
• Pre-build a PO1 pack with: issues list, summary procedure, disclosure cadence, cyber/AI protocol, third-party orders flow, and jurisdiction sequencing.
• Train your disputes team on the narrowed Section 67 lane; get front-loading habits in place.
• Map third-party repositories (banks, custodians, SaaS) for rapid Section 44 moves.
• Align outside counsel on early triage for summary dismissal and emergency relief.

19) TRW’s Perspective: Strategy that Travels

With bases in Dhaka, London (High Holborn), and Dubai, TRW advises on seat selection, clause strategy, and arbitration conduct across construction, energy, banking/derivatives, technology, and corporate disputes. The 2025 Act rewards users who prepare early and operate with discipline. We help:

• Design future-proof arbitration clauses for cross-border deals.
• Draft PO1 frameworks that compress cost and time.
• Plan evidence preservation and third-party moves.
• Navigate jurisdiction contests efficiently under the new regime.
• Run summary dismissal and emergency relief with pinpoint case theory.

Explore our capability overview here: International Arbitration & Enforcement.

20) Conclusion: A Faster, Clearer London Seat—If You Use It Well

The English Arbitration Act 2025 cements London’s attraction as a decisive, modern seat. By codifying disclosure, empowering early disposal, enforcing emergency relief, clarifying court support, and tidying jurisdiction challenges and clocks, it makes good process easier and gamesmanship harder. The reward goes to teams who update their contracts, front-load their cases, and embrace disciplined case management.

If you are negotiating a major cross-border agreement or preparing for a London-seated arbitration, now is the moment to refresh your tools. TRW can help you convert the Act’s refinements into practical advantage—from Dhaka to Dubai to London.

Summary Table — English Arbitration Act 2025 at a Glance

Reform	What It Does	Why It Matters	TRW Action Point
Law of the arbitration agreement (s.6A)	Default = law of the seat unless parties expressly agree otherwise	Fewer choice-of-law fights; cleaner separability/validity analysis	Specify clause law explicitly in all templates
Arbitrator disclosure duty (s.23A)	Codifies ongoing duty to disclose known/knowable conflicts	Less challenge risk; uniform standards	Build disclosure cadence into PO1
Arbitrator immunity	Shields reasonable resignation; removal-application costs only for bad faith	Less tactical pressure on arbitrators	De-incentivises frivolous removal drives
Summary dismissal (s.39A)	Dispose of claims/issues with no real prospect quickly	Time/cost compression; focus	Draft a lean summary procedure in PO1
Emergency arbitrators	Enforcement parity with regular tribunals	Urgent relief sticks; asset/evidence protection	Choose rules with emergency regime; seat in England
Court powers vs third parties (s.44)	Confirms reach against non-parties	Access to banks/custodians/clouds	Identify repositories early; prep Section 44 track
Section 32 gating	No Section 32 if tribunal already ruled	Less duplication	Decide prelim vs post-award strategy at CMC
Section 67 narrowed	No full re-hearing; new grounds only with reasonable diligence gap	Deference to tribunal; fewer second trials	Front-load jurisdiction evidence; preserve clean record
Costs sans jurisdiction	Tribunal may award costs even if it lacks jurisdiction	Deterrence of tactical filings	Budget for costs risk in jurisdiction fights
Section 70 time rules	Clear 28-day start points	Fewer clock disputes	Calendar reliably; tie to s.57 events
Appeals housekeeping	Confirms appeals across Part 1 (permission where stated)	Predictable escalations	Plan appeal strategy with correct permissions
Domestic provisions repealed	Clears unused sections 85–88	Less clutter	No action needed

Speak to TRW

For clause audits, PO1 toolkits, emergency-relief plans, or jurisdiction-challenge strategy under the 2025 Act, contact Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) Law Firm.

Contact Numbers
+8801708000660
+8801847220062
+8801708080817

Emails
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Global Law Firm Locations

• Dhaka: House 410, Road 29, Mohakhali DOHS
• Dubai: Rolex Building, L-12 Sheikh Zayed Road
• London: 330 High Holborn, London WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom

This publication provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific matters or disputes, please contact TRW’s international arbitration team.