2025 in review: International arbitration

2025 was a notable year for arbitration in England & Wales, marked by legislative change, technological advances, and significant judicial developments that continue to shape the arbitration landscape.

The Arbitration Act 2025
 

The English Arbitration Act 2025 (the “2025 Act”) came into force on 1 August 2025, with the following notable amendments to the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”):

1. Governing law – unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, the governing law of the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat.
2. Summary disposal – upon a party’s application, tribunals may summarily dismiss claims or defences that have “no real prospect of success”.
3. Jurisdictional challenges – where (i) a tribunal has already ruled on a jurisdictional challenge and (ii) the challenging party participated in the proceedings, the English court will not entertain further challenges unless it can be demonstrated that new grounds or evidence came to light after the initial challenge.
4. Interim relief – emergency arbitrators are empowered to (i) unless otherwise agreed by the parties, issue peremptory orders (which may be enforced by the court); and (ii) upon a party’s application, grant interim relief. The English court can also order relief against third parties in arbitration.
5. Arbitrator immunity – arbitrators are immune from liability if they resign or are removed, except where their resignation is considered “unreasonable” or they are found to have acted in “bad faith” (in which case, they may be liable as to costs).
6. Arbitrator impartiality – arbitrators are duty bound, from the moment they are first approached, to disclose any relevant circumstances that “might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts” as to their impartiality.

The amendments introduced by the 2025 Act will undoubtedly bolster the reputation of England & Wales as a leading, pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

AI in international arbitration
 

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”) published a Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration in 2025, which addressed the following key points:

1. Arbitrators’ powers – the use of AI by parties falls within the general power of arbitrators to conduct the proceedings, including giving directions and making procedural rulings. Tribunals are encouraged to record any decisions on the use of AI and, if contentious, to consider addressing the use of AI in awards.
2. Party autonomy – the parties may agree whether and how AI may be used in the arbitration. If the arbitration agreement is silent on AI and it has not been raised by the parties, the arbitrators are encouraged to invite the parties’ views at the appropriate time (either at the first case management conference or later).
3. Ruling on use of AI and admissibility of AI-generated material – in the event of a disagreement between the parties on the use of AI in the arbitration, or where the arbitrators consider AI jeopardises the integrity of the proceedings, the tribunal may rule on its use, taking into account any benefits, any risks, and the nature and features of the AI tool or platform.
4. Disclosure – disclosure of the use of AI may be required if it (i) impacts on the evidence or outcome of the arbitration or (ii) otherwise involves a delegation of an express duty toward the arbitrator or any other party. If a party fails to disclose the use of AI in contravention of the arbitrator’s direction, the arbitrator should assess any impact on the integrity of the proceedings.
5. Discretion over use of AI by arbitrators – arbitrators may use AI to enhance the arbitral process but they must not (i) relinquish their decision-making powers to AI or (ii) compromise the integrity of the arbitration nor the clarity or enforcement of the award by using AI. Further, arbitrators must verify the accuracy and correctness of information obtained through AI.
6. Transparency over use of AI by arbitrators – arbitrators are encouraged to consult with the parties, and with the other arbitrators sitting on the same tribunal, on the use of AI.

The CIArb Guidance acknowledges the potential for increased use of AI in arbitrations and sets out the various benefits and risks that parties and arbitration practitioners should be aware of in an ever-evolving AI landscape.

In light of the increase in (i) the inclusion of AI-related clauses in terms of reference and/or procedural orders and (ii) arbitral awards addressing the use of AI, it is important that parties familiarise themselves with AI and arbitration practitioners consider the potential implications, including disclosure obligations arising out of the use of AI.

Snapshot of key cases in 2025

1. In Unicredit Bank GmbH v Ruschemalliance LLC [2025] the Court of Appeal appears to have brought an end to the UniCredit saga. The court discharged the injunctive parts of the previous anti-suit injunction issued in UniCredit’s favour but left in place the declaratory parts as to jurisdiction of the English court which formed the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision. The case demonstrates not only that a commercial party is entitled to apply to vary or discharge an anti-suit injunction previously sought and obtained from the English courts, but that the English courts have the power to revoke or vary a final order for an anti-suit injunction.
2. In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v Republic of India [2025] the Commercial Court held that ratification of the New York Convention (“NYC”) does not in and of itself amount to a waiver of state immunity under the UK’s State Immunity Act 1978. The Judge made clear that the conclusion reached by the court in this case “[…] is not intended to contradict in any way the enforcement friendly aspect of the [NYC], which is its purpose, and the reason for its success, and which has been consistently upheld in the English courts […]”.
3. In A Corporation v Firm B & Anor [2025] the High Court clarified that arbitral confidentiality extends to hearings; disclosed documents; documents “generated” or “prepared for” and then used or produced in the arbitration; arbitral awards; and information derived from the aforementioned documents. By contrast, documents that came into existence independently of the arbitration are not subject to arbitral confidentiality. Further, the mere existence of a commercial dispute that leads to the commencement of arbitration proceedings is not confidential. The court also identified various exceptions to arbitral confidentiality, thereby providing welcome guidance for parties and arbitral practitioners regarding the scope of arbitral confidentiality.
4. In Star Hydro Power Limited v National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited [2025] the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the English courts have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over challenges to London-seated arbitral awards. Further, the court confirmed that the NYC is concerned only with applications for the recognition or enforcement of the award; accordingly, it does not provide for parties to bring pre-emptive challenges to London-seated arbitral awards, as this would undermine the role of the supervisory court as the exclusive jurisdiction for such challenges. The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal. The appeal relates to whether the English Courts can grant an injunction to restrain proceedings brought under the NYC in a foreign court that ostensibly seeks partial recognition and enforcement of a London-seated arbitral award.
5. In African Distribution Company S.a.r.L v Aastar Trading Pte Ltd [2025] the Commercial Court dismissed the claimant’s application for an extension of time to challenge an arbitral award under sections 67 and 68 of the 1996 Act, on the basis that the application was made outside the 28-day time limit in section 70(3). Further, the Judge observed (obiter) that section 72(1) of the 1996 Act provides for non-participants in arbitral proceedings to seek post-award relief (in addition to pre-award relief), and that any such claim is not subject to the 28-day time-limit in section 70(3).
6. In JSC “Kazan Oil Plant” v Aves Trade DMCC [2025] the Commercial Court (i) confirmed that any challenge under sections 67, 68, or 69 of the 1996 Act must be made within 28 days of the date of the award; and (ii) clarified that, where an award is the subject of an arbitral appeal or review, the normal 28-day period for a challenge under sections 67, 68, or 69 is extended pending the outcome of the appeal or review, so that time runs from “the date when the applicant or appellant was notified of the result of that process” (section 70(3)). As to the meaning of the wording in section 70(3), the Judge held that time for any challenge of an appeal award starts running from the date of the appeal award itself (rather than from the uncertain time of notification of the outcome to the parties). The Judgment highlights the fact that it critical for parties and arbitral practitioners to act without delay when seeking to challenge an arbitral award.
7. In A1 & Ors v P [2025] the High Court:
   • Found that the second claimant’s challenge was precluded by section 73 of the 1996 Act, which provides that where a party to an arbitration participates in the proceedings without objecting to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, that party cannot subsequently raise a jurisdictional challenge unless it can be shown that “he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds for the objection.” The court also found that the arbitral award stood in relation to the second claimant.
   • Upheld the challenge in respect of the first and third claimants, on the basis that they were not party to the relevant contract and (therefore) the arbitration agreement contained within it, and so the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction in respect of them. The court concluded that the arbitral award must be set aside or varied. This case is a rare example of a successful challenge to an arbitral award pursuant to section 67 of the 1996 Act.

The significant developments in arbitration in England & Wales over the past year reaffirm the resilience and continued relevance of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in an increasingly complex global environment.

About the author

Francesca is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. Her practice focuses on complex, high value disputes, often with a cross-border element. She has extensive trial experience and advises clients in commercial litigation and international arbitration proceedings.