CAN LONDON MAINTAIN ITS PLACE AS A LEADING INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE?
The most recent Queen Mary University International Arbitration Survey, published in 2021, revealed that 54 percent of respondents included Singapore as one of several “most preferred seats”, putting the city-state tied for first position with London, with Hong Kong following closely behind on 50 percent.
Despite Singapore’s challenge to London’s arbitration crown, London has long maintained its status as the leading global arbitration centre. The robust framework which the Arbitration Act 1996 provides, and the limits which it places on court intervention, are often cited by clients as a key factor in electing to arbitrate in London. This article considers whether the recommendations recently published by the Law Commission will maintain or raise London’s status as the seat of choice for international arbitration.
Why did the Law Commission make these recommendations?
The Law Commission is the statutory independent body which, pursuant to the Law Commissions Act 1965, is tasked with keeping the laws of England and Wales under review and to recommend reform where needed.
In March 2021, the Ministry of Justice asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the Arbitration Act to determine whether any amendments were required in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose and allows London to retain its position as a leading arbitration seat. The review process began in January 2022 and involved two public consultations with arbitration users and other stakeholders.
Rather than root and branch reform, the Law Commission has identified six ‘major initiatives’.
Arbitrator duty of disclosure
The UK Supreme Court in its 2020 judgment in Halliburton v. Chubb, held that English law imposes on arbitrators a continuing duty of disclosure of “matters which could arguably be said to give rise to a real possibility of bias”.
Jan-Mar 2024 issue
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP