PRESS RELEASE: 15 October 2026
On Tuesday (13/10/26) judgment was handed down in the High Court (Business & Property Division) in the case of A & Ors v E [2026] EWHC 2590 (BP) rejecting two applications brought under the Arbitration Act 1996.
Kingsley Napley acted for the successful Defendant, defeating a challenge to an LCIA arbitration award made on jurisdictional grounds (section 67 Arbitration Act) and procedural irregularity (section 68 Arbitration Act).
The judgment can be viewed here.
This case and the underlying arbitration involved a dispute between members of a prominent family and ownership of a substantial private group of companies.
The basis of the challenge was that the arbitration clause (contained in a deed signed only by the counterparties of Kingsley Napley’s client) did not amount to an arbitration agreement as it lacked the mutuality of a bilateral agreement.
Kingsley Napley partner and head of International Arbitration James Glaysher comments:
“We are pleased to have acted for the successful Defendant in this case, in which the Commercial Court dismissed a Section 67 and Section 68 Arbitration Act challenge to an LCIA Arbitration Award, pursued on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction pursuant to the deed, and/or that there was a serious irregularity in the Tribunal’s definition of the subsidiaries caught by their Award.
The jurisdictional dispute was unusual in that it arose from a deed, signed by the Claimants, which conferred on the Defendant a unilateral right to refer disputes arising from the deed to arbitration. The Claimants argued that this did not amount to an arbitration agreement as per the Arbitration Act.
The Commercial Court rejected the challenge, finding that applying a broad definition of ‘arbitration agreement’ is consistent with the Arbitration Act’s object and purpose and its open-textured language. It is the latest example of the English Courts providing its support for the arbitral process and parties’ election to arbitrate.
The judgment will have implications for others in circumstances where they might have codified commercial obligations (including the obligation to arbitrate) in non-traditional bilateral agreements, such as unilaterally executed deeds.”
ENDS
To speak to James Glaysher or for press enquiries about this case, please contact Louise Beeson, Bell Yard Kysen Communications: 07768 956997 / Louise@BYKcomms.com
Notes to Editors
Kingsley Napley LLP is a proudly independent, top 100 UK law firm standing beside clients with complex, high stakes or value-driven challenges. For more information about the firm please see www.kingsleynapley.co.uk
Andrew Hunter KC and Abe Chauhan of Blackstone Chambers also acted for the Defendant in the Commercial Court, instructed by Kingsley Napley.
