The Arbitration Act 2025 amends the Arbitration Act 1996 across Part 1 to address four practical fault lines: which law governs an arbitration agreement, when and what prospective arbitrators must disclose, how tribunals can dispose of issues quickly, and how courts and tribunals interact over jurisdictional challenges and emergency relief. It inserts a new section 6A to treat the arbitration agreement’s governing law separately from the main contract, creates a statutory duty of disclosure for anyone approached about appointment and for sitting arbitrators, and recognises and gives enforcement effect to emergency arbitrators and their peremptory orders.
For practitioners this is not a cosmetic update. The Act also narrows circumstances in which courts can strip arbitrators of costs, adjusts resignation and fee dispute procedures, clarifies when tribunals can award costs even if they lack substantive jurisdiction, introduces a statutory summary-award power for tribunals, tightens rules on mounting fresh objections or evidence in Court challenges, and sets transitional rules excluding pre‑commencement proceedings.
Each change shifts tactical and compliance considerations for counsel, arbitral institutions, parties and arbitrators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act (1) inserts section 6A so the arbitration agreement is governed by the law the parties expressly choose or, absent choice, the law of the seat; (2) imposes a duty to disclose on individuals approached for appointment and on arbitrators; (3) authorises tribunals to make summary awards and confirms enforceable emergency arbitrators; and (4) changes court powers on costs, appeals and challenges to awards, including new remedies and tighter procedural bars on raising new grounds or evidence.
Who It Affects
Commercial parties and their counsel drafting arbitration clauses; arbitral institutions that administer appointment and emergency relief rules; prospective and sitting arbitrators who must now disclose relevant circumstances; and courts asked to determine jurisdictional questions, enforce emergency orders or hear challenges to awards.
Why It Matters
The Act reduces uncertainty about which law governs arbitration agreements, creates early disclosure obligations that change arbitrator appointment practice, expands tribunal tools for early disposal, and formalises emergency arbitrator enforcement—altering arbitration drafting, appointment, and case-management strategies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 inserts a new statutory rule (section 6A) that treats the arbitration agreement’s governing law as distinct from the main contract: parties may choose the law that governs the arbitration agreement expressly, but if they do not the default is the law of the seat. Importantly, the Act says that choosing the law for the underlying contract does not automatically mean the arbitration agreement is governed by the same law.
The provision excludes arbitration agreements that derive from standing treaty or foreign legislative offers.
The Act creates a statutory duty of disclosure that applies in two moments: when an individual is approached about appointment and when an arbitrator is appointed and becomes aware of relevant circumstances. “Relevant circumstances” are defined by reference to whether they would give rise to justifiable doubts about impartiality, and the standard includes circumstances the individual ought reasonably to be aware of. That means appointment communications and institutional procedures will need to capture a broader set of fact-finding and record-keeping than many practices currently require.On arbitrator protections and resignation, the Act narrows when courts can order arbitrators to pay costs in removal proceedings to cases of bad faith, replaces the prior automatic protections on resignation with a process under which any relevant person (including the parties and arbitrator) may apply to court for orders about entitlement to fees and expenses, and makes an arbitrator potentially liable for an unreasonable resignation.
These changes reallocate certain financial risks from parties to arbitrators while formalising court oversight of fee disputes after resignation.The Act also expands tribunal powers: tribunals can make awards on a summary basis unless parties agree otherwise, provided parties get reasonable opportunity to be heard; tribunals can award costs even where they lack substantive jurisdiction (subject to any party agreement); and emergency arbitrators appointed under rules are expressly recognised, with their peremptory orders enforceable and court support mechanisms extended to them. Finally, the Act revises court challenge and appeal mechanics—giving courts a wider menu of remedies (including declaring an award to be of no effect), imposing procedural bars against raising new grounds or evidence that were not before the tribunal, and defining the ‘applicable date’ that starts challenge time limits—while excluding pre-commencement proceedings from most amendments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 6A makes the law of the arbitration agreement either the law the parties expressly choose or, if none, the law of the seat; choosing the contract’s law is not automatically a choice for the arbitration agreement.
Section 23A requires anyone approached about appointment to disclose relevant circumstances as soon as reasonably practical and obliges appointed arbitrators to disclose any such circumstances they become aware of.
Section 24(5A) prevents a court from ordering an arbitrator to pay costs in removal proceedings unless the arbitrator’s act or omission is shown to have been done in bad faith.
New section 39A authorises tribunals to make awards on a summary basis (similar to summary judgment) unless parties agree otherwise, but the tribunal must give parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
Section 41A recognises emergency arbitrators appointed under agreed rules and treats their peremptory orders as enforceable under the same court-support and enforcement provisions that apply to tribunals.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Separate choice-of-law rule for arbitration agreements
This provision creates a standalone rule: the arbitration agreement’s governing law is either the law the parties expressly select or, absent that, the law of the seat. Practically, the insertion stops parties from unintentionally fixing the arbitration agreement to a different law simply by choosing the substantive contract law. Drafters will now need an express clause if they want the same governing law to apply to both the contract and the arbitration agreement, and counsel should review legacy clauses for ambiguity. The carve-out for treaties and foreign legislation preserves public-law offers to arbitrate made by states or foreign legislatures.
Early and continuing disclosure duty for prospective and sitting arbitrators
The new duty applies earlier than most institutional rules: it binds an individual at the point of being approached for appointment and continues after appointment. The standard is objective—circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts—and includes matters the individual ought reasonably to be aware of. Administratively, appointment questionnaires and institutional rules will need revising, and counsel must factor disclosure obligations into challenge strategies: failure to disclose may feed removal applications or post-award challenges, even where disclosure would have surfaced only during appointment correspondence.
Recalibrated arbitrator immunity and resignation procedures
The Act narrows when courts can require arbitrators to pay costs in removal proceedings to situations involving bad faith, preserving general immunity but raising the bar for cost orders. It removes an automatic route that previously tied resignation to certain liabilities and replaces it with a regime where any party or the arbitrator may ask the court to decide entitlement to fees or repayment. Arbitrators are protected from liability from resignation unless resignation was unreasonable; but they are exposed to fee disputes and a bad-faith cost sanction in removal cases. This shifts some financial risk into judicial processes after resignation or removal.
Limits on repeated jurisdiction applications and costs even where no substantive jurisdiction
Courts must not consider applications under section 32 to the extent the tribunal has already ruled on the same question, which reduces parallel forum shopping for the same preliminary point. Separately, the amendment to section 61 makes clear tribunals can award costs regardless of whether they had substantive jurisdiction—a tactical exposure for parties seeking to pursue novel or borderline claims because a party may face costs even if the tribunal later lacks authority on the merits. Parties can recontract around these cost rules, but absent agreement the tribunal’s costs discretion is broader.
Tribunal summary-award power
Tribunals receive an express statutory power to enter awards on a summary basis where a party has no real prospect of success on a claim or defence. The power is subject to parties’ ability to opt out and requires the tribunal to give a reasonable opportunity to make representations before exercising procedural measures to expedite. This mirrors civil summary disposal tools and will encourage earlier case management but requires tribunals to balance expedition with sufficient procedural fairness.
Recognition and enforcement of emergency arbitrators
The Act recognises emergency arbitrators appointed under rules chosen by the parties, permits those emergency arbitrators to make peremptory orders if a party fails to comply without sufficient cause, and extends enforcement and court-support mechanisms to those orders. It also tightens the procedural gateway for seeking court support (permission of the tribunal or emergency arbitrator or written agreement of the parties). Institutions that provide emergency-arbitrator services will need to ensure their rules align with the Act to secure enforceability.
Broader court remedies, procedural bars and a clarified time limit
Courts get a wider set of remedies on challenges (confirm, vary, remit, set aside, or declare an award to be of no effect), but they must prefer remittal unless remittal is inappropriate. The Act enables court rules to prevent objections or evidence not raised before the tribunal from being advanced later, unless the applicant shows it was not discoverable with reasonable diligence. It also defines an ‘applicable date’ that fixes when challenge time limits start, including dates tied to arbitral appeals, material corrections or decisions on applications under section 57—reducing disputable start-date arguments.
Transitional carve-outs and regulation-making power
Most amendments do not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the relevant provisions come into force or to related court proceedings; the Secretary of State may fix commencement dates and make transitional or saving regulations. This gives the executive flexibility to phase in changes, but it requires parties and institutions to track commencement instruments closely to know whether an arbitration is governed by the old or new rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial contract drafters and in-house counsel — they gain certainty because the arbitration agreement’s governing law is now a separate, default rule and will avoid unintended choice-of-law traps if they insert explicit wording.
- Parties seeking rapid interim relief — users of emergency-arbitrator procedures have clearer statutory footing and stronger prospects of enforcing peremptory relief swiftly.
- Claimants and respondents favoring early disposal — parties with weak or strong claims alike can use the summary-award power to press for faster resolution of clearly unmeritorious positions.
- Arbitral institutions offering emergency relief — institutions that adapt their rules to the Act can offer services with enforceable outcomes, increasing the value of institutional emergency-arbitrator schemes.
- Parties and tribunals seeking finality in preliminary jurisdictional disputes — the bar on re-litigating tribunal-ruled questions in courts reduces duplicative forum battles over the same point.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prospective and sitting arbitrators — they must investigate and disclose relevant circumstances and may face fee disputes or liability for unreasonable resignation, increasing administrative burden and potential exposure.
- Arbitral institutions — they must update appointment questionnaires, emergency‑arbitrator rules, and administrative processes to align with statutory disclosure, enforcement and appointment expectations.
- Parties bringing novel jurisdictional arguments — they risk cost awards from tribunals even if those tribunals are later found to lack substantive jurisdiction, increasing the financial exposure of pursuing borderline claims.
- Defence counsel and claimants in close cases — the summary-award power and broader costs discretion can encourage more aggressive early motion practice and raise the cost of litigating marginal claims.
- Courts and court administrators — courts will need to apply new procedural rules about remittal, ‘applicable date’ calculations and maintain a more granular record of jurisdictional rulings, which may complicate case management.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expedition and finality on one hand, and procedural fairness and predictability on the other: the Act empowers tribunals and emergency arbitrators to resolve matters faster and gives courts new remedial tools, but these same measures increase incentives for tactical behaviour, raise the stakes of early proceedings, and place new burdens on arbitrators and institutions to police impartiality and procedural compliance.
The Act pushes arbitration law toward earlier judicial and tribunal gatekeeping while simultaneously enhancing tribunal tools for expedition and emergency relief. Those aims create several implementation tensions.
First, the new duty of disclosure is intentionally broad—covering what an individual ought reasonably to be aware of—but does not prescribe procedures or timelines for disclosures. Institutions and counsel will have to negotiate how detailed initial disclosures should be, and inconsistent practice risks tactical gamesmanship: strategic over-disclosure to avoid later challenges, or under-disclosure followed by contested removal or post-award claims.
Second, expanding tribunal powers to award costs even where they lack substantive jurisdiction and adding a summary-award power tilts the balance toward early final decisions, but at the price of increased strategic risk. Parties with marginal claims may now be deterred by a higher likelihood of adverse costs orders; conversely, parties facing summary disposal must invest in swift, high-quality evidence and legal argument early in the case.
That mix could drive more preliminary skirmishes, potentially increasing costs and complexity rather than reducing them.
Third, recognising emergency arbitrators and enforcing their peremptory orders through the courts expedites urgent relief but raises coherence and uniformity questions: different emergency arbitrators acting under divergent institutional rules might produce conflicting or overlapping orders, and the Act’s reliance on parties’ chosen rules means enforceability depends on alignment between institutional procedure and statutory gateways. Finally, the Secretary of State’s regulation power for commencement and transitional measures creates a risk of staggered application across cases and forums; stakeholders must watch commencement instruments closely to determine which rules apply to which arbitrations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.