Executive Summary
The Arbitration Act 2025 represents a significant yet incremental reform to the UK’s arbitration framework, refining key provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. It clarifies the law governing arbitration agreements, introduces express summary disposal powers, strengthens arbitrator duties and immunity, and enhances emergency arbitration and interim relief mechanisms. These changes aim to reinforce London’s position as a leading global arbitral seat by improving predictability, efficiency, and enforcement.
However, the Act leaves several modern challenges unaddressed. It does not codify confidentiality, regulate third-party funding, address technology and AI in arbitration, or implement diversity and anti-corruption measures. A comparative analysis with Singapore and Hong Kong reveals that while the UK Act advances in some areas, it lags behind in statutory clarity on confidentiality, transparency in funding, and digital readiness.
This article concludes that while the Arbitration Act 2025 improves certainty and efficiency, future reforms should adopt best practices from Singapore and Hong Kong, particularly regarding confidentiality, third-party funding regulation, and digital integration. Recommendations include codifying default confidentiality, mandating funder disclosure, integrating AI and virtual hearings, and aligning with UNCITRAL Model Law updates to maintain the UK’s competitiveness as a premier arbitral jurisdiction.
Article Structure
1. Introduction
- Background of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the need for reform
- Objectives of the Arbitration Act 2025
- Methodology: comparative and policy analysis
2. Salient Features of the Arbitration Act 2025
- Governing law of arbitration agreements (Section 6A)
- Express summary disposal power (Section 39A)
- Expanded arbitrator duties & immunity
- Emergency arbitrator powers
- Reform of jurisdictional challenges
- Enhanced court support for arbitration (Section 44)
3. Missed Opportunities and Criticisms
- No statutory confidentiality provisions
- Absence of third-party funding regulation
- No integration of technology or AI
- Lack of diversity and anti-corruption safeguards
4. Comparative Analysis with Singapore & Hong Kong
- Confidentiality regimes
- Third-party funding regulations
- Technology and digital readiness
- Emergency arbitration and interim relief
- Diversity and anti-corruption measures
5. Policy Recommendations for the UK
- Codifying confidentiality with clear exceptions
- Mandatory disclosure and regulation of third-party funding
- Incorporating AI, virtual hearings, and digital evidence
- Encouraging diversity and anti-discrimination in arbitrator appointments
- Aligning with UNCITRAL Model Law amendments
6. Conclusion
- The Arbitration Act 2025 as an incremental reform rather than a comprehensive overhaul
- Importance of adopting international best practices to future-proof UK arbitration
Salient features of the Arbitration Act 2025 (amending and modernizing the Arbitration Act 1996 in England & Wales and Northern Ireland):
1. Governing law of the arbitration agreement (Section 6A)
- All arbitration agreements will now be governed by the law of the seat, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
- Choosing the law of the main contract does not automatically apply it to the arbitration clause.
- This replaces the uncertainty created by the Enka case and ensures clearer defaults.
2. Explicit summary disposal power (Section 39A)
- Arbitrators can now explicitly summarily dismiss claims/issues with “no real prospect of success “mirroring court rules.
- Applies unless parties have opted out, and requires giving the other side a reasonable chance to respond.
- Intended to reduce cost, time, and frivolous claims.
3. Expanded arbitrator duties & immunity
- Statutory duty of disclosure: Arbitrators must continue revealing any circumstances that could challenge their impartiality-not just what they know, but what they reasonably should know.
- Stronger immunity protections:
Resignation won’t trigger liability unless it was “unreasonable.”
Removal proceedings won’t make an arbitrator pay costs unless they acted in bad faith.
4. Emergency arbitrator powers
- Emergency arbitrators may now issue peremptory orders-final directives with deadlines.
- These can be enforced as court orders, and emergency arbitrators can seek court assistance under Section 44.
- Designed to give interim decision-making real bite.
5. Reform of jurisdiction challenges (Sec 67 & 32)
Section 67 changes: Parties can’t bring new grounds or evidence to court for jurisdictional challenges unless they were not discoverable earlier, and courts generally can’t re-hear the full case-boosting finality and efficiency.
Section 32 clarified: If a tribunal has already ruled on jurisdiction, you cannot simultaneously use Section 32-avoiding overlap.
6. Enhanced court support for arbitration (Section 44)
- Courts can now grant interim relief (freezing orders, witness orders, evidence preservation) against third parties-not just arbitration participants.
- This includes interim relief applications by emergency arbitrators.
Overall goal: Modernize the framework for efficiency, certainty, and robust enforcement, reinforcing London’s position as a top global arbitral seat.
Summary table
| Feature | Key Effect |
| Law of arbitration agreement | Seat law default, unless explicitly otherwise |
| Summary dismissal | Arbiter authority to reject hopeless cases early |
| Arbitrator duty & immunity | Stricter disclosure; safe-market for resignation/removal |
| Emergency arbitrator authority | Peremptory orders enforceable in court |
| Jurisdiction challenges | No new evidence/grounds; trimmed back court review |
| Court support (Section 44) | Interim relief now applies to third parties |
After coming into force on 1st August 2025. Provisions commence by statutory instrument-applying only to new arbitrations or related court proceedings after that date.
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 vs the Arbitration Act 2025 highlighting what changed and why it matters.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Why It Matters
- Predictability: Resolves long-standing uncertainty over which law governs arbitration clauses.
- Efficiency: Lets tribunals filter out meritless claims early, saving costs.
- Integrity: Strengthens arbitrator independence and impartiality standards.
- Emergency readiness: Makes emergency relief enforceable and effective.
- Finality: Prevents jurisdictional re-litigation, speeding up outcomes.
- Court support: Extends courts’ power to third parties, improving enforcement.
What Didn’t Change (Missed Opportunities)
- No statutory confidentiality → unlike Hong Kong.
- No third-party funding regulation → unlike Singapore & HK.
- No tech/AI provisions → unlike SIAC’s new digital rules.
- No diversity or anti-corruption measures → still left to institutions.
Criticisms of the Arbitration Act 2025:
1. Missed opportunity on confidentiality
- The Act remains silent on confidentiality—leaving it to common law rather than codifying a principle.
- Critics argue this is a shortfall, as confidentiality is often a top reason parties choose arbitration.
2. No provisions for third-party funding
- Despite the growing prevalence of third-party funding in international arbitration, the Act does not require disclosure, nor does it regulate this area.
- This leaves potential transparency issues unaddressed.
3. No guidance on technology or AI usage
- The legislation does not address remote hearings, e‑filing, AI tools, or data security—all of which are increasingly central to modern arbitration
- Critics believe this is a missed opportunity, as AI becomes more pervasive in dispute resolution.
4. No statutory anti-discrimination measures
- The Act does not forbid discrimination in arbitrator selection or mandate diversity, despite earlier Law Commission proposals
- Supporters argue diversity remains best addressed by institutions—not legislation.
5. No explicit anti-corruption safeguards
- While corruption concerns were raised during consultation, the final Act contains no specific corruption-focused provisions, instead relying on existing remedies and institutional practices.
- Some see this as a gap in addressing global corruption risks.
Summary Table
| Unaddressed Issue | Why It Matters |
| Confidentiality | Core to arbitration’s appeal |
| Third-party funding | Rising use, lack of transparency |
| Technology/AI | Increasing relevance post‑pandemic |
| Discrimination/diversity | Equity and representation concerns |
| Anti-corruption measures | Gaps in addressing global bribery risks |
Suggestions for further improvements for any future refinement of the Arbitration Act 2025:
1. Codify confidentiality obligations
- Explicitly set out confidentiality as a default principle, with limited exceptions (e.g., public interest, enforcement).
- Align the UK with jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong, which have clear statutory provisions on confidentiality.
2. Regulate third-party funding
- Require disclosure of third-party funders to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure transparency.
- Consider safeguards for security for costs when funders are involved, as in Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance.
3. Address technology & AI in arbitration
- Introduce provisions enabling:
- Virtual hearings as a default option.
- Use of AI-assisted tools with safeguards on fairness, bias, and data security.
- E-signatures, e-filing, and digital evidence rules for modern practice.
- This would align with UNCITRAL’s recent work on technology in arbitration.
4. Strengthen diversity & anti-discrimination measures
- Include a non-discrimination clause for arbitrator appointments (e.g., gender, race, nationality).
- Encourage diversity reporting by arbitral institutions without making it overly prescriptive.
5. Enhance anti-corruption safeguards
- Allow tribunals broader powers to deal with contracts tainted by corruption.
- Provide guidance on public policy exceptions for enforcement of awards involving illicit activities.
6. Clarify interaction with international instruments
- Align the Act more explicitly with:
- UNCITRAL Model Law amendments
- Singapore Convention on Mediation (for hybrid clauses)
- This would maintain London’s competitiveness as a top arbitral seat.
7. Expand interim measures & enforcement
- Broaden the range of interim relief that tribunals can order (e.g., asset freezing, document production).
- Make emergency arbitrator awards enforceable like final awards without separate court applications.
8. Introduce an appellate arbitration mechanism (optional)
- Allow parties to opt into a specialized arbitral appeal panel (similar to CPR Arbitration Appeal Procedure in the U.S.).
- This would balance finality vs. error correction for complex, high-stakes disputes.
Summary Table: Suggested Improvements
| Area | Suggested Reform |
| Confidentiality | Make it statutory, with clear exceptions |
| Funding | Mandatory disclosure of third-party funders |
| Technology/AI | Virtual hearings, AI safeguards, digital evidence |
| Diversity | Non-discrimination clause & reporting |
| Anti-corruption | Stronger tribunal powers on tainted contracts |
| Global alignment | Synchronize with UNCITRAL, Singapore Convention |
| Interim measures | Stronger tribunal + emergency arbitrator powers |
| Appeal options | Optional arbitral appellate procedure |
Overall Aim
These reforms would:
- Modernize UK arbitration law further, keeping pace with Singapore, Hong Kong, and UNCITRAL developments.
- Enhance transparency, diversity, and integrity in arbitration.
- Ensure future-proofing for AI, digitalization, and global best practices.
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 2025 with Singapore and Hong Kong arbitration laws, focusing on key areas:
1. Confidentiality
- UK (2025 Act): Remains silent on confidentiality—courts rely on common law and institutional rules, leaving uncertainty for parties seated in London
- Hong Kong: Statutory protection under Section 18(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance—arbitration proceedings and awards are confidential by default, barring agreed exceptions
- Singapore: Confidentiality obligations are embedded in institutional rules (e.g. SIAC), but not codified in statute. Parties must rely on SIAC Rules and courts.
Takeaway: Hong Kong offers the strongest statutory clarity, while the UK still lags behind.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
- UK: No statutory requirement to disclose funders; left to market norms and occasional tribunal.
- Hong Kong: Legalized TPF in 2017, enforced by a mandatory Code of Practice. Funders must meet capital requirements, disclose funding, and face an advisory oversight body.
- Singapore: Similarly legalized via the Civil Law (Third‑Party Funding) Regulations. SIAC Rules (2025) now mandate disclosure of funder’s identity and details, and involve lawyers’ obligations under professional conduct rules.
Takeaway: Singapore and Hong Kong both provide greater transparency and oversight than the UK.
3. Technology & Remote Hearings
- UK (Act 2025): No direct reference to digital processes, AI, or remote hearings—still relying on tribunal procedural autonomy.
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) include provisions for virtual case management, streamlined admin procedures, and coordination of related proceedings, enhancing digital readiness .
- Hong Kong: While its Arbitration Ordinance doesn’t explicitly mandate technology usage, HKIAC institutional rules provide virtual hearing protocols and e‑filing guidance in practice (though no statutory rule).
4. Diversity & Non‑Discrimination
- UK: No statutory provisions—diversity remains in the hands of institutions and best practice.
- Singapore & Hong Kong: Similarly lack legislative diversity mandates, though institutions often encourage representation as part of their practice notes and guidelines.
5. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Measures
- UK: Act 2025 empowers emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders enforceable via courts under Section 44.
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) allow emergency arbitrators pre-notice of arbitration and ex parte protective orders, boosting interim-support mechanisms .
- Hong Kong: HK Arbitration Ordinance and HKIAC Rules support emergency arbitration (since 2011) and interim measures, though not further updated like SIAC.
Summary Table
| Feature | UK Arbitration Act 2025 | Singapore (SIAC Rules 2025) | Hong Kong (Arbitration Ordinance) |
| Confidentiality | Common‑law default; unclear | Rule-based under SIAC | Statutory duty (Section 18(1)) |
| TPF regulation | Voluntary, market-driven | Mandatory disclosure and lawyers’ duty | Mandatory Code; advisory oversight |
| Digital tools | No statutory guidance | Virtual hearings, e‑cases, streamlined admin | Institutional support via HKIAC rules |
| Emergency arb. orders | Court-enforceable peremptory orders | Emergency and ex parte orders | Emergency arb. supported by Ordinance + institutional rules |
| Diversity | No statutory mandate | No statutory mandate (institution-led) | No statutory mandate (institution-led) |
Final Assessment
- Singapore is the most proactive, with tech-savvy rules (SIAC 2025), mandatory TPF disclosures, and procedural innovation.
- Hong Kong offers strong statutory confidentiality and TPF regulation with institutional oversight.
- UK improves interim powers (emergency arbitration) but lags in confidentiality clarity, TPF disclosure, tech integration, and diversity.
Conclusion: For maximum statutory certainty and tech readiness, Singapore and Hong Kong outpace the UK in several reforms. The UK Act 2025 makes valuable updates, but future enhancements could build on those jurisdictions’ models—especially on confidentiality, third-party funding, digital processes, and diversity promotion.
Comparative analysis with policy recommendations for improving the UK Arbitration Act by learning from Singapore and Hong Kong:
1. Confidentiality
Current UK Position (2025 Act):
- No statutory confidentiality; relies on common law and institutional rules.
- Risk of uncertainty if parties don’t expressly agree.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Hong Kong: Statutory protection under Section 18(1) of Arbitration Ordinance—proceedings & awards confidential by default unless disclosure needed for enforcement, legal duty, or public interest.
- Singapore: No statutory provision but SIAC Rules create binding confidentiality obligations for parties, tribunal & SIAC.
Recommendation for UK
- Introduce a default confidentiality clause with clear exceptions (e.g. enforcement, public interest, legal obligations).
- Model it on Hong Kong’s approach but maintain flexibility for opt-out agreements.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
Current UK Position:
- No disclosure requirement; entirely market-led.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: Civil Law (TPF) Regulations legalize TPF; SIAC Rules mandate disclosure of funder identity & interest.
- Hong Kong: Arbitration Ordinance explicitly permits TPF; mandatory Code of Practice governs funder capital adequacy, transparency & conflicts of interest.
Recommendation for UK
Amend the Act to:
- Require disclosure of funders & material terms.
- Create a voluntary code of conduct for funders (as in Hong Kong).
- Empower tribunals to order security for costs in TPF-backed cases.
3. Technology, AI & Digitalization
Current UK Position:
- Act 2025 silent on virtual hearings, AI evidence, or cybersecurity.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) integrate virtual case management, remote hearings, e‑filing, and consolidation/coordination of related arbitrations.
- Hong Kong: HKIAC Rules provide online hearing protocols and secure digital evidence exchange.
Recommendation for UK
Add a Technology Annex to the Act or a Practice Direction:
- Recognize virtual hearings & e‑filing as equal to in‑person proceedings.
- Permit AI-assisted evidence analysis with fairness safeguards.
- Include data protection/cybersecurity guidelines for arbitral proceedings.
4. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Relief
Current UK Position:
2025 Act allows emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders enforceable in court.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
Singapore: SIAC Rules allow ex parte emergency orders pre‑notice of arbitration and urgent interim relief.
Hong Kong: HK Arbitration Ordinance fully recognizes emergency arbitration and allows direct enforcement of emergency awards.
Recommendation for UK
Clarify that emergency arbitrator awards have the same enforceability as final awards without separate court confirmation.
Consider ex parte interim relief in urgent cases (as SIAC allows)
5. Global Alignment & Diversity
Current UK Position:
Act 2025 doesn’t reference UNCITRAL amendments or promote diversity.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: SIAC actively aligns with UNCITRAL Model Law updates and promotes diverse arbitrator lists.
- Hong Kong: HKIAC offers diversity pledges but no legislation.
Recommendation for UK
- Explicitly align with UNCITRAL Model Law (latest version) to ensure global consistency.
- Encourage diversity-friendly appointments by adding a non‑discrimination statement or reporting requirement.
6. Anti‑Corruption & Public Policy
Current UK Position:
No special guidance on corruption-tainted contracts or awards.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
Both jurisdictions defer to tribunals’ powers but provide guidelines on public policy exceptions.
Recommendation for UK
- Include guidance allowing tribunals to proactively investigate corruption indicators.
- Clarify when public policy bars enforcement of tainted awards.
Comparative Snapshot
| Feature | UK Act 2025 | Singapore | Hong Kong | Suggested UK Reform |
| Confidentiality | Common law only | SIAC rules impose confidentiality | Statutory default | Codify default with opt-out |
| TPF regulation | No rules | Legalized, mandatory disclosure | Legalized, mandatory Code | Disclosure + voluntary funder code |
| Digitalization | Silent | SIAC 2025 embraces virtual hearings, e‑filing | HKIAC Rules support online | Add Tech Annex for virtual/AI |
| Emergency Arb. | Peremptory orders enforceable | Ex parte & enforceable | Fully enforceable | Direct enforceability for emergency awards |
| Diversity | No provision | Institutional only | Institutional only | Add non-discrimination pledge |
Comparative Analysis: UK Arbitration Act 2025, Singapore & Hong Kong
1. Confidentiality
UK Arbitration Act 2025
No statutory provision—relies on common law and institutional rules. Lacks clarity unless agreed expressly.
Hong Kong
Section 18(1) of Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) grants default statutory confidentiality, covering proceedings and awards—subject only to limited exceptions (e.g. legal obligation, enforcement).
HKIAC Rules (2018) reinforce this via Article 45.1 and broader scope including tribunal and emergency arbitrator.
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 include binding confidentiality obligations on parties and tribunal, though not enshrined in Singapore statute.
Case Study: Hong Kong
The case Housing Authority v Sui Chong underlined statutory confidentiality, requiring justification before disclosure-even for listed companies.
Recommendation for UK: Enact statutory confidentiality similar to Hong Kong, with defined exceptions and scope.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
UK
No statutory regime or disclosure requirement—left to market practice.
Hong Kong
Allowed since 2017; governed by:
- Written Code of Practice for funders (minimum capital/HK$20M, disclosure, conflict policies)
- Mandatory disclosure of TPF agreements and funder identity
Case Study:
Omni Bridgeway funded a HKIAC arbitration post-2019 reform—one of the region’s first funded cases.
HKIAC recorded 74 funded arbitrations in 2022, up from 3 in 2020
Singapore
Legalized TPF in 2017; SIAC Rules 2025 mandate:
- Disclosure of existence, identity, contact details
- Tribunal power to order disclosure and sanction non-compliance
- Prohibition on entering TPF agreements post-constitution if conflict arises
Case Study:
SIAC Rules streamline TPF process and transparency under Rule 38
Recommendation for UK: Require mandatory TPF disclosure, adopt a voluntary code, and enhance tribunal powers (e.g., security for costs).
3. Technology & Virtual Hearings 💻
UK
The 2025 Act remains silent; continues reliance on tribunal autonomy.
Hong Kong
No statutory mechanism but HKIAC Rules allow virtual hearing protocols and secure digital evidence management
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 introduce virtual case management, remote hearings, e-filing, and coordinated proceedings
Recommendation for UK: Introduce a Technology Annex or Practice Direction authorizing virtual hearings, e-filing, AI-assisted processes, and cybersecurity standards.
4. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Relief
UK
Emergency arbitrators can issue peremptory, court-enforceable orders under Section 44.
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 allow protective preliminary orders (PPO) ex parte, issued within 24 hours and enforceable.
Hong Kong
Recognizes emergency arbitration via ordinance and supported by HKIAC Rules since 2011, though lacking SIAC-style ex parte PPO clarity.
Recommendation for UK: Codify direct enforceability of emergency awards and consider introducing ex parte interim relief akin to SIAC.
5. Diversity & Non‑Discrimination 🌍
UK
No statutory mandate; diversity reliant on institution-led initiatives.
Singapore & Hong Kong
Also lack statutory diversity provisions; institutions encourage via internal practice.
Recommendation for UK: Introduce a legislated non-discrimination clause and require annual diversity reporting from institutions.
6. Anti‑Corruption & Public Policy
UK
No explicit anti-corruption provisions in Act 2025.
Singapore & Hong Kong
Rely on tribunal discretion and Model Law public policy exceptions; no specific statutory rules.
Recommendation for UK: Introduce guidance around tribunal powers to detect corruption and clarify enforcement exclusions on public policy grounds.
Summary Table
| Area | UK (Act 2025) | Singapore (SIAC Rules 2025) | Hong Kong (Ordinance & HKIAC Rules) | UK Proposed Reform |
| Confidentiality | None (common law) | Rule-based | Statutory (≤Section 18) | Statutory default with exceptions |
| Third-Party Funding | Market-based | Mandatory disclosure & tribunal power | Code of practice, disclosure mandatory | Mandatory disclosure, voluntary funder code |
| Technology | Silent | Virtual hearings, e-filing enforced | Institutional protocols | Tech Annex, AI & cybersecurity safeguards |
| Emergency Arbitration | Court-enforceable orders | Ex parte PPO & enforceable | Supported by ordinance/rules | Direct enforceability + ex parte capability |
| Diversity | None | Institutional encouragement | Institutional encouragement | Non-discrimination clause, reporting |
| Anti‑Corruption | None | Tribunal discretion | Tribunal discretion | Guidance + public policy triggers |
Policy Vision for UK Reform
Adopting best practices from Singapore and Hong Kong would:
- Enhance transparency and predictability (through confidentiality and TPF regimes)
- Drive digital transformation (virtual hearings, e-filing, AI use)
- Strengthen ethics and integrity (diversity, anti-corruption safeguards)
- Ensure London remains competitive as a leading global arbitration seat
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 vs the Arbitration Act 2025 highlighting what changed and why it matters.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Area | Arbitration Act 1996 | Arbitration Act 2025 | Key Impact |
| Law governing arbitration agreement | No default rule → led to uncertainty (Enka v Chubb [2020]) | Default = law of the seat unless expressly agreed otherwise | Clear & predictable |
| Summary disposal of weak claims | No express tribunal power | Section 39A allows dismissal of claims/defences with no real prospect of success | Saves time & cost |
| Arbitrator’s duty of disclosure | Common law duty (Halliburton v Chubb [2020]) | Clarified as a continuing statutory duty including what they “ought reasonably to know” | Higher impartiality standards |
| Arbitrator immunity | Limited; resignation risked liability | Broadened: no liability unless unreasonable/bad faith | Encourages service without fear |
| Emergency arbitrators | Not explicitly covered | Peremptory orders enforceable by courts; can seek court interim relief | Stronger emergency relief |
| Jurisdiction challenges (Section 67) | Court could rehear full case on jurisdiction | Court now reviews tribunal decision; no new grounds/evidence unless unavailable earlier | More finality & efficiency |
| Court interim powers (Section 44) | Applied only to arbitration parties | Can now bind third parties for interim measures (e.g., freezing orders) | Wider scope for enforcement |
| Technology/digitalization | Silent | Still silent – left to tribunal rules | Potential future reform area |
| Confidentiality & TPF | Not in statute | Still no statutory confidentiality or TPF disclosure | Remains a gap compared to HK & Singapore |
Why It Matters
- Predictability: Resolves long-standing uncertainty over which law governs arbitration clauses.
- Efficiency: Lets tribunals filter out meritless claims early, saving costs.
- Integrity: Strengthens arbitrator independence and impartiality standards.
- Emergency readiness: Makes emergency relief enforceable and effective.
- Finality: Prevents jurisdictional re-litigation, speeding up outcomes.
- Court support: Extends courts’ power to third parties, improving enforcement.
What Didn’t Change (Missed Opportunities)
- No statutory confidentiality → unlike Hong Kong.
- No third-party funding regulation → unlike Singapore & HK.
- No tech/AI provisions → unlike SIAC’s new digital rules.
- No diversity or anti-corruption measures → still left to institutions.
Final Thoughts
The Arbitration Act 2025 is a modern, refined update to strengthen clarity, efficiency, and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction in London and the UK.
The Arbitration Act 2025 is best seen as a fine-tuning measure-not a full-scale overhaul. While it advances certainty, efficiency, and arbitrator empowerment, it leaves several modern challenges unaddressed-notably around privacy, technology, funding, diversity, and corruption. Stakeholders and institutions, rather than statutory law, are expected to fill these gaps.
Modernizing Arbitration in the UK: A Critical Analysis of the Arbitration Act 2025 and its Global Context
Executive Summary
The Arbitration Act 2025 represents a significant yet incremental reform to the UK’s arbitration framework, refining key provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. It clarifies the law governing arbitration agreements, introduces express summary disposal powers, strengthens arbitrator duties and immunity, and enhances emergency arbitration and interim relief mechanisms. These changes aim to reinforce London’s position as a leading global arbitral seat by improving predictability, efficiency, and enforcement.
However, the Act leaves several modern challenges unaddressed. It does not codify confidentiality, regulate third-party funding, address technology and AI in arbitration, or implement diversity and anti-corruption measures. A comparative analysis with Singapore and Hong Kong reveals that while the UK Act advances in some areas, it lags behind in statutory clarity on confidentiality, transparency in funding, and digital readiness.
This article concludes that while the Arbitration Act 2025 improves certainty and efficiency, future reforms should adopt best practices from Singapore and Hong Kong, particularly regarding confidentiality, third-party funding regulation, and digital integration. Recommendations include codifying default confidentiality, mandating funder disclosure, integrating AI and virtual hearings, and aligning with UNCITRAL Model Law updates to maintain the UK’s competitiveness as a premier arbitral jurisdiction.
Article Structure
1. Introduction
- Background of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the need for reform
- Objectives of the Arbitration Act 2025
- Methodology: comparative and policy analysis
2. Salient Features of the Arbitration Act 2025
- Governing law of arbitration agreements (Section 6A)
- Express summary disposal power (Section 39A)
- Expanded arbitrator duties & immunity
- Emergency arbitrator powers
- Reform of jurisdictional challenges
- Enhanced court support for arbitration (Section 44)
3. Missed Opportunities and Criticisms
- No statutory confidentiality provisions
- Absence of third-party funding regulation
- No integration of technology or AI
- Lack of diversity and anti-corruption safeguards
4. Comparative Analysis with Singapore & Hong Kong
- Confidentiality regimes
- Third-party funding regulations
- Technology and digital readiness
- Emergency arbitration and interim relief
- Diversity and anti-corruption measures
5. Policy Recommendations for the UK
- Codifying confidentiality with clear exceptions
- Mandatory disclosure and regulation of third-party funding
- Incorporating AI, virtual hearings, and digital evidence
- Encouraging diversity and anti-discrimination in arbitrator appointments
- Aligning with UNCITRAL Model Law amendments
6. Conclusion
- The Arbitration Act 2025 as an incremental reform rather than a comprehensive overhaul
- Importance of adopting international best practices to future-proof UK arbitration
Salient features of the Arbitration Act 2025 (amending and modernizing the Arbitration Act 1996 in England & Wales and Northern Ireland):
1. Governing law of the arbitration agreement (Section 6A)
- All arbitration agreements will now be governed by the law of the seat, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
- Choosing the law of the main contract does not automatically apply it to the arbitration clause.
- This replaces the uncertainty created by the Enka case and ensures clearer defaults.
2. Explicit summary disposal power (Section 39A)
- Arbitrators can now explicitly summarily dismiss claims/issues with “no real prospect of success “mirroring court rules.
- Applies unless parties have opted out, and requires giving the other side a reasonable chance to respond.
- Intended to reduce cost, time, and frivolous claims.
3. Expanded arbitrator duties & immunity
- Statutory duty of disclosure: Arbitrators must continue revealing any circumstances that could challenge their impartiality-not just what they know, but what they reasonably should know.
- Stronger immunity protections:
Resignation won’t trigger liability unless it was “unreasonable.”
Removal proceedings won’t make an arbitrator pay costs unless they acted in bad faith.
4. Emergency arbitrator powers
- Emergency arbitrators may now issue peremptory orders-final directives with deadlines.
- These can be enforced as court orders, and emergency arbitrators can seek court assistance under Section 44.
- Designed to give interim decision-making real bite.
5. Reform of jurisdiction challenges (Sec 67 & 32)
Section 67 changes: Parties can’t bring new grounds or evidence to court for jurisdictional challenges unless they were not discoverable earlier, and courts generally can’t re-hear the full case-boosting finality and efficiency.
Section 32 clarified: If a tribunal has already ruled on jurisdiction, you cannot simultaneously use Section 32-avoiding overlap.
6. Enhanced court support for arbitration (Section 44)
- Courts can now grant interim relief (freezing orders, witness orders, evidence preservation) against third parties-not just arbitration participants.
- This includes interim relief applications by emergency arbitrators.
Overall goal: Modernize the framework for efficiency, certainty, and robust enforcement, reinforcing London’s position as a top global arbitral seat.
Summary table
| Feature | Key Effect |
| Law of arbitration agreement | Seat law default, unless explicitly otherwise |
| Summary dismissal | Arbiter authority to reject hopeless cases early |
| Arbitrator duty & immunity | Stricter disclosure; safe-market for resignation/removal |
| Emergency arbitrator authority | Peremptory orders enforceable in court |
| Jurisdiction challenges | No new evidence/grounds; trimmed back court review |
| Court support (Section 44) | Interim relief now applies to third parties |
After coming into force on 1st August 2025. Provisions commence by statutory instrument-applying only to new arbitrations or related court proceedings after that date.
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 vs the Arbitration Act 2025 highlighting what changed and why it matters.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Why It Matters
- Predictability: Resolves long-standing uncertainty over which law governs arbitration clauses.
- Efficiency: Lets tribunals filter out meritless claims early, saving costs.
- Integrity: Strengthens arbitrator independence and impartiality standards.
- Emergency readiness: Makes emergency relief enforceable and effective.
- Finality: Prevents jurisdictional re-litigation, speeding up outcomes.
- Court support: Extends courts’ power to third parties, improving enforcement.
What Didn’t Change (Missed Opportunities)
- No statutory confidentiality → unlike Hong Kong.
- No third-party funding regulation → unlike Singapore & HK.
- No tech/AI provisions → unlike SIAC’s new digital rules.
- No diversity or anti-corruption measures → still left to institutions.
Criticisms of the Arbitration Act 2025:
1. Missed opportunity on confidentiality
- The Act remains silent on confidentiality—leaving it to common law rather than codifying a principle.
- Critics argue this is a shortfall, as confidentiality is often a top reason parties choose arbitration.
2. No provisions for third-party funding
- Despite the growing prevalence of third-party funding in international arbitration, the Act does not require disclosure, nor does it regulate this area.
- This leaves potential transparency issues unaddressed.
3. No guidance on technology or AI usage
- The legislation does not address remote hearings, e‑filing, AI tools, or data security—all of which are increasingly central to modern arbitration
- Critics believe this is a missed opportunity, as AI becomes more pervasive in dispute resolution.
4. No statutory anti-discrimination measures
- The Act does not forbid discrimination in arbitrator selection or mandate diversity, despite earlier Law Commission proposals
- Supporters argue diversity remains best addressed by institutions—not legislation.
5. No explicit anti-corruption safeguards
- While corruption concerns were raised during consultation, the final Act contains no specific corruption-focused provisions, instead relying on existing remedies and institutional practices.
- Some see this as a gap in addressing global corruption risks.
Summary Table
| Unaddressed Issue | Why It Matters |
| Confidentiality | Core to arbitration’s appeal |
| Third-party funding | Rising use, lack of transparency |
| Technology/AI | Increasing relevance post‑pandemic |
| Discrimination/diversity | Equity and representation concerns |
| Anti-corruption measures | Gaps in addressing global bribery risks |
Suggestions for further improvements for any future refinement of the Arbitration Act 2025:
1. Codify confidentiality obligations
- Explicitly set out confidentiality as a default principle, with limited exceptions (e.g., public interest, enforcement).
- Align the UK with jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong, which have clear statutory provisions on confidentiality.
2. Regulate third-party funding
- Require disclosure of third-party funders to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure transparency.
- Consider safeguards for security for costs when funders are involved, as in Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance.
3. Address technology & AI in arbitration
- Introduce provisions enabling:
- Virtual hearings as a default option.
- Use of AI-assisted tools with safeguards on fairness, bias, and data security.
- E-signatures, e-filing, and digital evidence rules for modern practice.
- This would align with UNCITRAL’s recent work on technology in arbitration.
4. Strengthen diversity & anti-discrimination measures
- Include a non-discrimination clause for arbitrator appointments (e.g., gender, race, nationality).
- Encourage diversity reporting by arbitral institutions without making it overly prescriptive.
5. Enhance anti-corruption safeguards
- Allow tribunals broader powers to deal with contracts tainted by corruption.
- Provide guidance on public policy exceptions for enforcement of awards involving illicit activities.
6. Clarify interaction with international instruments
- Align the Act more explicitly with:
- UNCITRAL Model Law amendments
- Singapore Convention on Mediation (for hybrid clauses)
- This would maintain London’s competitiveness as a top arbitral seat.
7. Expand interim measures & enforcement
- Broaden the range of interim relief that tribunals can order (e.g., asset freezing, document production).
- Make emergency arbitrator awards enforceable like final awards without separate court applications.
8. Introduce an appellate arbitration mechanism (optional)
- Allow parties to opt into a specialized arbitral appeal panel (similar to CPR Arbitration Appeal Procedure in the U.S.).
- This would balance finality vs. error correction for complex, high-stakes disputes.
Summary Table: Suggested Improvements
| Area | Suggested Reform |
| Confidentiality | Make it statutory, with clear exceptions |
| Funding | Mandatory disclosure of third-party funders |
| Technology/AI | Virtual hearings, AI safeguards, digital evidence |
| Diversity | Non-discrimination clause & reporting |
| Anti-corruption | Stronger tribunal powers on tainted contracts |
| Global alignment | Synchronize with UNCITRAL, Singapore Convention |
| Interim measures | Stronger tribunal + emergency arbitrator powers |
| Appeal options | Optional arbitral appellate procedure |
Overall Aim
These reforms would:
- Modernize UK arbitration law further, keeping pace with Singapore, Hong Kong, and UNCITRAL developments.
- Enhance transparency, diversity, and integrity in arbitration.
- Ensure future-proofing for AI, digitalization, and global best practices.
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 2025 with Singapore and Hong Kong arbitration laws, focusing on key areas:
1. Confidentiality
- UK (2025 Act): Remains silent on confidentiality—courts rely on common law and institutional rules, leaving uncertainty for parties seated in London
- Hong Kong: Statutory protection under Section 18(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance—arbitration proceedings and awards are confidential by default, barring agreed exceptions
- Singapore: Confidentiality obligations are embedded in institutional rules (e.g. SIAC), but not codified in statute. Parties must rely on SIAC Rules and courts.
Takeaway: Hong Kong offers the strongest statutory clarity, while the UK still lags behind.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
- UK: No statutory requirement to disclose funders; left to market norms and occasional tribunal.
- Hong Kong: Legalized TPF in 2017, enforced by a mandatory Code of Practice. Funders must meet capital requirements, disclose funding, and face an advisory oversight body.
- Singapore: Similarly legalized via the Civil Law (Third‑Party Funding) Regulations. SIAC Rules (2025) now mandate disclosure of funder’s identity and details, and involve lawyers’ obligations under professional conduct rules.
Takeaway: Singapore and Hong Kong both provide greater transparency and oversight than the UK.
3. Technology & Remote Hearings
- UK (Act 2025): No direct reference to digital processes, AI, or remote hearings—still relying on tribunal procedural autonomy.
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) include provisions for virtual case management, streamlined admin procedures, and coordination of related proceedings, enhancing digital readiness .
- Hong Kong: While its Arbitration Ordinance doesn’t explicitly mandate technology usage, HKIAC institutional rules provide virtual hearing protocols and e‑filing guidance in practice (though no statutory rule).
4. Diversity & Non‑Discrimination
- UK: No statutory provisions—diversity remains in the hands of institutions and best practice.
- Singapore & Hong Kong: Similarly lack legislative diversity mandates, though institutions often encourage representation as part of their practice notes and guidelines.
5. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Measures
- UK: Act 2025 empowers emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders enforceable via courts under Section 44.
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) allow emergency arbitrators pre-notice of arbitration and ex parte protective orders, boosting interim-support mechanisms .
- Hong Kong: HK Arbitration Ordinance and HKIAC Rules support emergency arbitration (since 2011) and interim measures, though not further updated like SIAC.
Summary Table
| Feature | UK Arbitration Act 2025 | Singapore (SIAC Rules 2025) | Hong Kong (Arbitration Ordinance) |
| Confidentiality | Common‑law default; unclear | Rule-based under SIAC | Statutory duty (Section 18(1)) |
| TPF regulation | Voluntary, market-driven | Mandatory disclosure and lawyers’ duty | Mandatory Code; advisory oversight |
| Digital tools | No statutory guidance | Virtual hearings, e‑cases, streamlined admin | Institutional support via HKIAC rules |
| Emergency arb. orders | Court-enforceable peremptory orders | Emergency and ex parte orders | Emergency arb. supported by Ordinance + institutional rules |
| Diversity | No statutory mandate | No statutory mandate (institution-led) | No statutory mandate (institution-led) |
Final Assessment
- Singapore is the most proactive, with tech-savvy rules (SIAC 2025), mandatory TPF disclosures, and procedural innovation.
- Hong Kong offers strong statutory confidentiality and TPF regulation with institutional oversight.
- UK improves interim powers (emergency arbitration) but lags in confidentiality clarity, TPF disclosure, tech integration, and diversity.
Conclusion: For maximum statutory certainty and tech readiness, Singapore and Hong Kong outpace the UK in several reforms. The UK Act 2025 makes valuable updates, but future enhancements could build on those jurisdictions’ models—especially on confidentiality, third-party funding, digital processes, and diversity promotion.
Comparative analysis with policy recommendations for improving the UK Arbitration Act by learning from Singapore and Hong Kong:
1. Confidentiality
Current UK Position (2025 Act):
- No statutory confidentiality; relies on common law and institutional rules.
- Risk of uncertainty if parties don’t expressly agree.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Hong Kong: Statutory protection under Section 18(1) of Arbitration Ordinance—proceedings & awards confidential by default unless disclosure needed for enforcement, legal duty, or public interest.
- Singapore: No statutory provision but SIAC Rules create binding confidentiality obligations for parties, tribunal & SIAC.
Recommendation for UK
- Introduce a default confidentiality clause with clear exceptions (e.g. enforcement, public interest, legal obligations).
- Model it on Hong Kong’s approach but maintain flexibility for opt-out agreements.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
Current UK Position:
- No disclosure requirement; entirely market-led.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: Civil Law (TPF) Regulations legalize TPF; SIAC Rules mandate disclosure of funder identity & interest.
- Hong Kong: Arbitration Ordinance explicitly permits TPF; mandatory Code of Practice governs funder capital adequacy, transparency & conflicts of interest.
Recommendation for UK
Amend the Act to:
- Require disclosure of funders & material terms.
- Create a voluntary code of conduct for funders (as in Hong Kong).
- Empower tribunals to order security for costs in TPF-backed cases.
3. Technology, AI & Digitalization
Current UK Position:
- Act 2025 silent on virtual hearings, AI evidence, or cybersecurity.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: SIAC Rules (2025) integrate virtual case management, remote hearings, e‑filing, and consolidation/coordination of related arbitrations.
- Hong Kong: HKIAC Rules provide online hearing protocols and secure digital evidence exchange.
Recommendation for UK
Add a Technology Annex to the Act or a Practice Direction:
- Recognize virtual hearings & e‑filing as equal to in‑person proceedings.
- Permit AI-assisted evidence analysis with fairness safeguards.
- Include data protection/cybersecurity guidelines for arbitral proceedings.
4. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Relief
Current UK Position:
2025 Act allows emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders enforceable in court.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
Singapore: SIAC Rules allow ex parte emergency orders pre‑notice of arbitration and urgent interim relief.
Hong Kong: HK Arbitration Ordinance fully recognizes emergency arbitration and allows direct enforcement of emergency awards.
Recommendation for UK
Clarify that emergency arbitrator awards have the same enforceability as final awards without separate court confirmation.
Consider ex parte interim relief in urgent cases (as SIAC allows)
5. Global Alignment & Diversity
Current UK Position:
Act 2025 doesn’t reference UNCITRAL amendments or promote diversity.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
- Singapore: SIAC actively aligns with UNCITRAL Model Law updates and promotes diverse arbitrator lists.
- Hong Kong: HKIAC offers diversity pledges but no legislation.
Recommendation for UK
- Explicitly align with UNCITRAL Model Law (latest version) to ensure global consistency.
- Encourage diversity-friendly appointments by adding a non‑discrimination statement or reporting requirement.
6. Anti‑Corruption & Public Policy
Current UK Position:
No special guidance on corruption-tainted contracts or awards.
Singapore & Hong Kong Models:
Both jurisdictions defer to tribunals’ powers but provide guidelines on public policy exceptions.
Recommendation for UK
- Include guidance allowing tribunals to proactively investigate corruption indicators.
- Clarify when public policy bars enforcement of tainted awards.
Comparative Snapshot
| Feature | UK Act 2025 | Singapore | Hong Kong | Suggested UK Reform |
| Confidentiality | Common law only | SIAC rules impose confidentiality | Statutory default | Codify default with opt-out |
| TPF regulation | No rules | Legalized, mandatory disclosure | Legalized, mandatory Code | Disclosure + voluntary funder code |
| Digitalization | Silent | SIAC 2025 embraces virtual hearings, e‑filing | HKIAC Rules support online | Add Tech Annex for virtual/AI |
| Emergency Arb. | Peremptory orders enforceable | Ex parte & enforceable | Fully enforceable | Direct enforceability for emergency awards |
| Diversity | No provision | Institutional only | Institutional only | Add non-discrimination pledge |
Comparative Analysis: UK Arbitration Act 2025, Singapore & Hong Kong
1. Confidentiality
UK Arbitration Act 2025
No statutory provision—relies on common law and institutional rules. Lacks clarity unless agreed expressly.
Hong Kong
Section 18(1) of Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) grants default statutory confidentiality, covering proceedings and awards—subject only to limited exceptions (e.g. legal obligation, enforcement).
HKIAC Rules (2018) reinforce this via Article 45.1 and broader scope including tribunal and emergency arbitrator.
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 include binding confidentiality obligations on parties and tribunal, though not enshrined in Singapore statute.
Case Study: Hong Kong
The case Housing Authority v Sui Chong underlined statutory confidentiality, requiring justification before disclosure-even for listed companies.
Recommendation for UK: Enact statutory confidentiality similar to Hong Kong, with defined exceptions and scope.
2. Third‑Party Funding (TPF)
UK
No statutory regime or disclosure requirement—left to market practice.
Hong Kong
Allowed since 2017; governed by:
- Written Code of Practice for funders (minimum capital/HK$20M, disclosure, conflict policies)
- Mandatory disclosure of TPF agreements and funder identity
Case Study:
Omni Bridgeway funded a HKIAC arbitration post-2019 reform—one of the region’s first funded cases.
HKIAC recorded 74 funded arbitrations in 2022, up from 3 in 2020
Singapore
Legalized TPF in 2017; SIAC Rules 2025 mandate:
- Disclosure of existence, identity, contact details
- Tribunal power to order disclosure and sanction non-compliance
- Prohibition on entering TPF agreements post-constitution if conflict arises
Case Study:
SIAC Rules streamline TPF process and transparency under Rule 38
Recommendation for UK: Require mandatory TPF disclosure, adopt a voluntary code, and enhance tribunal powers (e.g., security for costs).
3. Technology & Virtual Hearings 💻
UK
The 2025 Act remains silent; continues reliance on tribunal autonomy.
Hong Kong
No statutory mechanism but HKIAC Rules allow virtual hearing protocols and secure digital evidence management
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 introduce virtual case management, remote hearings, e-filing, and coordinated proceedings
Recommendation for UK: Introduce a Technology Annex or Practice Direction authorizing virtual hearings, e-filing, AI-assisted processes, and cybersecurity standards.
4. Emergency Arbitration & Interim Relief
UK
Emergency arbitrators can issue peremptory, court-enforceable orders under Section 44.
Singapore
SIAC Rules 2025 allow protective preliminary orders (PPO) ex parte, issued within 24 hours and enforceable.
Hong Kong
Recognizes emergency arbitration via ordinance and supported by HKIAC Rules since 2011, though lacking SIAC-style ex parte PPO clarity.
Recommendation for UK: Codify direct enforceability of emergency awards and consider introducing ex parte interim relief akin to SIAC.
5. Diversity & Non‑Discrimination 🌍
UK
No statutory mandate; diversity reliant on institution-led initiatives.
Singapore & Hong Kong
Also lack statutory diversity provisions; institutions encourage via internal practice.
Recommendation for UK: Introduce a legislated non-discrimination clause and require annual diversity reporting from institutions.
6. Anti‑Corruption & Public Policy
UK
No explicit anti-corruption provisions in Act 2025.
Singapore & Hong Kong
Rely on tribunal discretion and Model Law public policy exceptions; no specific statutory rules.
Recommendation for UK: Introduce guidance around tribunal powers to detect corruption and clarify enforcement exclusions on public policy grounds.
Summary Table
| Area | UK (Act 2025) | Singapore (SIAC Rules 2025) | Hong Kong (Ordinance & HKIAC Rules) | UK Proposed Reform |
| Confidentiality | None (common law) | Rule-based | Statutory (≤Section 18) | Statutory default with exceptions |
| Third-Party Funding | Market-based | Mandatory disclosure & tribunal power | Code of practice, disclosure mandatory | Mandatory disclosure, voluntary funder code |
| Technology | Silent | Virtual hearings, e-filing enforced | Institutional protocols | Tech Annex, AI & cybersecurity safeguards |
| Emergency Arbitration | Court-enforceable orders | Ex parte PPO & enforceable | Supported by ordinance/rules | Direct enforceability + ex parte capability |
| Diversity | None | Institutional encouragement | Institutional encouragement | Non-discrimination clause, reporting |
| Anti‑Corruption | None | Tribunal discretion | Tribunal discretion | Guidance + public policy triggers |
Policy Vision for UK Reform
Adopting best practices from Singapore and Hong Kong would:
- Enhance transparency and predictability (through confidentiality and TPF regimes)
- Drive digital transformation (virtual hearings, e-filing, AI use)
- Strengthen ethics and integrity (diversity, anti-corruption safeguards)
- Ensure London remains competitive as a leading global arbitration seat
Comparison of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 vs the Arbitration Act 2025 highlighting what changed and why it matters.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Area | Arbitration Act 1996 | Arbitration Act 2025 | Key Impact |
| Law governing arbitration agreement | No default rule → led to uncertainty (Enka v Chubb [2020]) | Default = law of the seat unless expressly agreed otherwise | Clear & predictable |
| Summary disposal of weak claims | No express tribunal power | Section 39A allows dismissal of claims/defences with no real prospect of success | Saves time & cost |
| Arbitrator’s duty of disclosure | Common law duty (Halliburton v Chubb [2020]) | Clarified as a continuing statutory duty including what they “ought reasonably to know” | Higher impartiality standards |
| Arbitrator immunity | Limited; resignation risked liability | Broadened: no liability unless unreasonable/bad faith | Encourages service without fear |
| Emergency arbitrators | Not explicitly covered | Peremptory orders enforceable by courts; can seek court interim relief | Stronger emergency relief |
| Jurisdiction challenges (Section 67) | Court could rehear full case on jurisdiction | Court now reviews tribunal decision; no new grounds/evidence unless unavailable earlier | More finality & efficiency |
| Court interim powers (Section 44) | Applied only to arbitration parties | Can now bind third parties for interim measures (e.g., freezing orders) | Wider scope for enforcement |
| Technology/digitalization | Silent | Still silent – left to tribunal rules | Potential future reform area |
| Confidentiality & TPF | Not in statute | Still no statutory confidentiality or TPF disclosure | Remains a gap compared to HK & Singapore |
Why It Matters
- Predictability: Resolves long-standing uncertainty over which law governs arbitration clauses.
- Efficiency: Lets tribunals filter out meritless claims early, saving costs.
- Integrity: Strengthens arbitrator independence and impartiality standards.
- Emergency readiness: Makes emergency relief enforceable and effective.
- Finality: Prevents jurisdictional re-litigation, speeding up outcomes.
- Court support: Extends courts’ power to third parties, improving enforcement.
What Didn’t Change (Missed Opportunities)
- No statutory confidentiality → unlike Hong Kong.
- No third-party funding regulation → unlike Singapore & HK.
- No tech/AI provisions → unlike SIAC’s new digital rules.
- No diversity or anti-corruption measures → still left to institutions.
Final Thoughts
The Arbitration Act 2025 is a modern, refined update to strengthen clarity, efficiency, and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction in London and the UK.
The Arbitration Act 2025 is best seen as a fine-tuning measure-not a full-scale overhaul. While it advances certainty, efficiency, and arbitrator empowerment, it leaves several modern challenges unaddressed-notably around privacy, technology, funding, diversity, and corruption. Stakeholders and institutions, rather than statutory law, are expected to fill these gaps.