2025 English Commercial Arbitration Round-Up

What were the most important English commercial arbitration developments of 2025? Here's our round-up of the key trends and cases shaping the landscape. Do also check out our Inside Arbitration podcast where we discuss these topics further.

1. Amendments to the English Arbitration Act 1996
2. Courts' approach to dispute resolution clauses
3. Scope of arbitral confidentiality
4. Time limits for challenging arbitral awards
5. Court of Appeal rules on the limits of the New York Convention
6. Sovereign immunity and arbitration

Amendments to the English Arbitration Act 1996

On 1 August 2025, the Arbitration Act 2025 came into force, amending the English Arbitration Act 1996 (together referred to as 'the Act'). The Act applies to arbitration proceedings (and related court proceedings) commenced after 1 August 2025. It also applies retrospectively to arbitration agreements. These amendments followed a comprehensive Law Commission review and consultation process. Rather than a root and branch reform, the changes are intended to fine-tune and clarify the law, reinforcing the UK's position as a leading destination for commercial arbitration.

Significant changes to the Act include:

• Duty of disclosure codified: The codification of the arbitrator's duty of disclosure (p 23A), which requires prospective and sitting arbitrators to disclose any relevant circumstances of which they are or become aware that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality in relation to the potential or ongoing proceedings.
• Enhanced Arbitrator immunity: The strengthening of arbitrator immunity around resignation and removal (p 24(5A)).
• Statutory power of summary disposal: The introduction of a statutory power of summary disposal (p 39A), confirming the tribunal's power to make an award on a summary basis (upon an application made by a party) if it considers that a party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defence, or issue.
• Amended process for jurisdictional challenges: The changed framework and procedure for jurisdictional challenges under p 67. The Act permits the creation of new court rules (which have not been published yet) to prevent the court from re-hearing evidence that has already been heard by a tribunal and to restrict parties' ability to raise new grounds or evidence, subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice.
• Default governing law rule: The introduction of a new default rule (p 6A) which provides that the governing law of an arbitration agreement shall be the seat of the arbitration unless the parties agree otherwise.
• Court powers clarified: Clarification of the court's powers in support of arbitral proceedings and in support of emergency arbitrators. Orders under p 44 of the Act (such as for the preservation of evidence) are now confirmed to be available against third parties. Emergency arbitrators are also empowered both to issue peremptory orders (which can result in court-ordered compliance under p 42 of the Act) and to give permission for applications to the court under p 44(4).

The full impact of these reforms is yet to unfold. It will be interesting to observe whether, in the coming year, the English courts encounter novel issues arising from these changes. For more information see our blog post and podcast on the recent amendments to the Act.

Courts' approach to dispute resolution clauses

Several decisions this year addressed the interpretation of competing or conflicting dispute resolution clauses:

• In Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch), the Court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a Settlement Agreement (SA) superseded an ICC arbitration clause contained in earlier Frame Agreements. The Court reasoned that the SA included an entire agreement clause, which emphasised the intention of the parties that the jurisdiction clause would include rights under the parties' prior contractual arrangements. For more information, see our blog post.
• In Tecnicas Reunidas Saudia v Petroleum Chemicals and Mining [2025] EWHC 1785 (Comm), the Court upheld a challenge to a partial award issued by an ICC tribunal on the grounds of jurisdiction. The case concerned conflicting arbitration clauses, one of which provided for ICC arbitration, and the other ad hoc arbitration. In confirming that the ICC tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the parties' agreement to ad hoc arbitration, this case provides an interesting analysis of the differences between the two. See the judgment here.
• Recently, in FH Holding Moscow Ltd v AO Unicredit Bank & Anor [2025] EWHC 3111 (Comm), the High Court considered competing jurisdiction clauses in two related contracts forming part of a single transaction: one providing for arbitration and the other conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Moscow Commercial Court. The Court commented that where a dispute falls within the ambit of both clauses, either may apply and emphasised that a "broad, purposive and commercially minded" approach should be adopted, construing the clauses in light of the overall transaction. On this basis, the Court held that the Moscow proceedings were not in breach of the arbitration agreement, as the dispute implicated both contracts. See the full judgment here.
• In Hipgnosis SFH 1 Ltd v Barry Manilow [2025] EWCA Civ 486, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that had accepted the concept of "floating jurisdiction" under an asymmetric jurisdiction clause. After Hipgnosis sued in England, Mr Manilow commenced proceedings in Los Angeles and sought a stay. The Court of Appeal rejected the notion that jurisdiction could retrospectively shift, holding that English jurisdiction, once properly invoked, could not be displaced. Although there was no arbitration clause in this case, the reasoning applies equally to asymmetric clauses incorporating arbitration options (for more information see our blog post).

Scope of arbitral confidentiality

In A Corporation v (1) Firm B and (2) Mr W [2025] EWHC 1092, the Commercial Court declined to grant an injunction preventing a law firm from acting in an arbitration on the basis of an alleged risk of misuse of confidential material subject to arbitral confidentiality. The judgment contains a helpful summary of the legal principles relating to the obligation of confidentiality in arbitral proceedings and the relevant exceptions. The confidentiality concerns arose from circumstances where the same law firm represented separate clients pursuing claims against a common counterparty. The Court commented that an exception to confidentiality might apply where practitioners and parties seek to adduce evidence from a third party who has conducted an arbitration against a common counterparty. On the facts of this case, however, the judge was not persuaded that there had been breaches of confidentiality or that it would be just and equitable to restrain the law firm in question from continuing to act in future, as there was no realistic possibility that further confidential information would be disclosed. For more information on this case see our blog post here.

Time limits for challenging arbitral awards

Recent decisions of the Commercial Court have clarified the strict time limits for challenging arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act 1996, underscoring the need for parties to act without delay:

• In African Distribution Company S.a.r.L v Aastar Trading Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 2428 (Comm), the Court dismissed an application to extend time for challenges under ps 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, reaffirming the strict 28-day limit in p 70(3). However, it left open the possibility that a non-participating party could invoke p 72 without time limits, describing it as a "free-standing, flexible remedy" and a jurisdictional "safety-valve" that may, in principle, be used post-award to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief. See our blog post on this judgment here.
• In JSC "Kazan Oil Plant" v Aves Trade DMCC [2025] EWHC 2713 (Comm), the Court dismissed an out of time p 69 challenge to a FOSFA appeal award and refused an extension under p 80(5). The Court clarified that where an award follows an arbitral appeal process and no further arbitral review is available, the 28-day period to challenge the award runs from the date of that award and not when the award was received by the applicant. For more information see our blog post on this decision here.

Court of Appeal rules on the limits of the New York Convention

In Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 928, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal granting an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondent from pursuing proceedings related to a London-seated arbitral award in Lahore, Pakistan. The Court clarified that while the New York Convention governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, it does not permit a party to bring pre-emptive challenges to a London-seated arbitral award in foreign jurisdictions. The English courts maintain exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over such challenges under the Act, with the New York Convention operating only as a shield in recognition and enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions. The case is set to be considered by the Supreme Court in 2026. For more information, see our blog post here.

Sovereign immunity and arbitration

The interp of arbitration and sovereign immunity under the UK State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) continues to generate significant case law:

• In General Dynamics v Libya [2025] EWCA Civ 134, the Court of Appeal considered whether Libya had waived immunity from execution under p 13(3) SIA 1978. Clause 32 of the contract provided for ICC arbitration and stated that any award would be "final, binding and wholly enforceable". The Court held that Libya had waived its execution immunity, though the judges differed on reasoning. For further discussion of this case, see our podcast and blog post.
• In Hulley Enterprises v Russia [2025] EWCA Civ, the Court of Appeal held that a foreign judgment can give rise to an issue estoppel conclusively precluding a state from re-litigating whether an exception to state immunity under the SIA 1978 applies. In this case, the courts of the Netherlands (the seat of arbitration) had decided that Russia had agreed in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration. The English courts were therefore entitled to treat that decision as giving rise to an issue estoppel. For more information see our blog post.
• In CC/Devas v Republic of India [2025] EWHC Comm, the Commercial Court considered whether India's ratification of the New York Convention amounted to a waiver of state immunity under p 2(2) SIA 1978. The Court held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, in itself, constitute consent by "prior written agreement" to the English court's adjudicative jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that any waiver of state immunity by treaty or convention must be express and unequivocal. This case is set to be considered by the Court of Appeal in March 2026 on the basis that it has implications for English law on state immunity beyond this dispute. The Court of Appeal judgment in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL and another v Kingdom of Spain [2024] EWCA Civ 1257 is also of note given its determination that foreign states cannot rely on state immunity to oppose registration of adverse arbitration awards issued under the ICSID Convention. This is also being considered by the Supreme Court. For more information see our blog posts here and here.
• See here for another case in which the Court grappled with the issue of sovereign immunity and found that a lender's claim against a sovereign state and central bank was not barred on sovereign immunity grounds.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.