London has long positioned itself as one of the world’s leading seats for international arbitration. A key reason for this reputation is the consistent approach of the English courts: while they will support arbitration where necessary, they are generally reluctant to interfere with arbitral proceedings once they are underway.

Two recent developments reinforce that position. The first is the introduction of the Arbitration Act 2025, which updates and modernises the UK’s arbitration framework. The second is the Commercial Court’s decision in A v B [2026] EWHC 327 (Comm), which provides a recent example of the courts declining to intervene in ongoing arbitration proceedings. Taken together, they illustrate the continued commitment of the English legal system to supporting arbitration while limiting unnecessary judicial intervention.

The decision in A v B

In A v B, the claimant sought to prevent an arbitration from continuing by invoking the court’s case management powers under the Civil Procedure Rules. The argument was that the court should intervene to halt or restrain the arbitration proceedings.

The Commercial Court declined to do so. In refusing the application, the court emphasised the fundamental principle that arbitration is intended to operate as an autonomous dispute resolution process. Once parties have agreed to arbitrate and proceedings have begun, the tribunal is generally the appropriate forum to determine issues arising in the dispute, including questions relating to jurisdiction or procedure.

The court therefore refused to interfere with the arbitration and allowed the proceedings to continue.

While the decision turned on the particular circumstances of the case, it reflects a broader judicial policy: parties should not expect the English courts to intervene in arbitral proceedings except in clearly defined and limited circumstances.

The Arbitration Act 2025

The legislative reforms introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 represent the most significant update to English arbitration law in nearly three decades. The reforms build upon the existing framework established by the Arbitration Act 1996, which has long been regarded as a cornerstone of London’s attractiveness as an arbitration seat.

The changes are designed to modernise the regime while preserving the fundamental principles that have made it successful. Among the key reforms are:

1. A default rule on the governing law of arbitration agreements Where the parties have not expressly chosen the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the law of the seat will generally apply and not the law governing the main contract. This aims to reduce uncertainty and avoid satellite disputes about applicable law.

2. Summary disposal powers Arbitral tribunals are now expressly empowered to summarily dispose of claims or defences that have no real prospect of success. This mirrors summary judgment procedures available in court proceedings and is intended to promote efficiency in arbitration.

3. A revised framework for jurisdiction challenges The reforms under section 11 of the 2025 Act clarify the procedure for challenges under section 67 of the 1996 Act, addressing concerns about the extent to which courts should reconsider jurisdictional issues that have already been determined by an arbitral tribunal.

4. Clarification of arbitrator duties and immunity The legislation also strengthens protections for arbitrators and clarifies aspects of their duties, helping to provide greater certainty for those acting in the role.

Overall, the reforms aim to ensure that English arbitration law remains modern, efficient and internationally competitive.

A consistent theme: limited court intervention

The decision in A v B and the reforms introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 reflect a common underlying principle: arbitration should be allowed to function with minimal judicial interference.

Practical implications for commercial parties

For businesses and practitioners, these developments carry several practical implications.

First, attempts to derail or delay arbitration through court proceedings are unlikely to succeed unless there is a clear statutory basis for intervention.

Secondly, parties should ensure that arbitration clauses are drafted carefully. Issues such as the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the seat of arbitration and the applicable institutional rules can have significant consequences if disputes arise.

Finally, parties engaged in arbitration should be prepared to address procedural and jurisdictional issues before the tribunal itself rather than relying on the courts to intervene.

Conclusion

The combination of legislative reform and recent case law sends a clear message: England remains firmly committed to supporting arbitration as an efficient and autonomous method of dispute resolution.

The Arbitration Act 2025 modernises the legal framework, while the decision in A v B illustrates the courts’ continuing reluctance to interfere with arbitral proceedings unnecessarily. Together, they reinforce London’s position as a leading global centre for international arbitration and provide reassurance to parties that their agreement to arbitrate will be respected.

For more information please contact Erica Simpson esimpson@ortolan.com