The English
Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is founded on the principle that arbitration
gives effect to the parties’ choice to refer their disputes to arbitration and
that courts should only intervene to support and not displace it. This article
discusses the Arbitration Reform Project of the Law Commission, specifically
appeals under section 69 of the AA 1996, with a special focus on shipping,
where arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution method, so as to explore
how the right to appeal in law is used differently in different categories of
disputes, reflecting the different expectations of the parties involved. Where
appeals on questions of law are permitted, there is in practice a tendency to
abuse this mechanism, as questions of fact are often cloaked as questions of
law. Additionally, we observe an inconsistent exercise of discretion of the
courts in granting leave under section 69(3)(c)(ii) of the AA 1996 which
requires both that the question be of general public importance and that the
tribunal’s decision be at least open to serious doubt. Courts seem to be not
too readily granting leave, but rather reluctant to do unless the requirements
set by law exist. This article also discusses the only new change regarding appeals
in arbitration, namely, the new section 67 of the AA 2025. Previously (i.e.,
before the 2025 reforms), section 67 of the AA 1996 allowed a party to
challenge an arbitral award, and courts could review all evidence and arguments
even if not previously submitted to the tribunal (as per Dallah v. Pakistan,
(2010) 10 UKSC 46 – court’s de novo jurisdiction). In contrast, the 2025
amendments restrict courts from rehearing evidence or entertaining new
objections unless they were previously undiscoverable, and limit reviews to
tribunal materials unless justice requires otherwise. Our analysis shows that
the appeals regime under section 69 of the AA 1996 is sound in principle as it
strikes an appropriate balance between finality and legal oversight and therefore
has been retained, as confirmed in the Law Commission’s final report. However,
this article argues that the English High Court must take care to avoid any
misapplication of the statutory requirements when granting leave to appeal on
questions of law under section 69.