Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR)

A Preliminary Report on the Response of English
Courts to the 1996 UK Arbitration Act
For a number of years, England's reputation as a center for international
arbitration has undergone a decline.Within the international arbitration
community, the English courts were perceived as too intrusive and
unwilling to leave the resolution of disputes to arbitrators. A significant
amount of arbitration business, therefore, began a progressive migration to
more hospitable jurisdictions. See Rees, Challenging Arbitration Awards
in London under the New Act, International Commercial Litigation (Oct.
1997); Verkaik, Arbitration: it's all very hush-hush, Independent (Feb. 11,
1998).
England recognized the problem and attempted to resolve it. The initial
solution came in the form of the 1979 Arbitration Act. The 1979 Act,
however, did not sufficiently dispel the fears of court intervention. In
1989, a committee of the Department of Trade and Industry made a
number of recommendations for reforming the arbitration act to stem the
tide of fleeing arbitration business. In 1994, Lord Justice Seville became
chair of the Committee and the driving force behind statutory reform.
Reflecting upon his mission, Lord Seville commented: "What I was faced
with was the fact that competitor nations had gone a long way towards
improving their own arbitral procedures in the light of the [UNCITRAL]
Model Law, while here no progress was apparent despite the years that
had passed by. In these circumstances it seemed to me that while what had
to be done was obvious, it had to be done as fast as possible."
The 1996 UK Arbitration Act was the result of Lord Seville's work. In
many respects, the new legislation codifies principles that were already
present in English arbitral practice. In this sense, the 1996 Act merely
gives English arbitration law a facelift. The effect of that facelift, however,
is striking. The new law is a highly sophisticated and well-crafted
statement of modern arbitration doctrine that merges governing principles
with the realities of arbitral practice. Most importantly, it makes clear that
judicial intervention is restricted and functions primarily to assist the
arbitral process.
The following preliminary report describes and evaluates the English
court response to the new legislation since it took effect on January 31,
1997.