International Arbitration in London

Introduction

London is one of the world’s leading centres for international arbitration, alongside Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Geneva. The city’s pre-eminence reflects the combination of a well-developed legal framework under the Arbitration Act 1996, the neutrality and expertise of English courts, the availability of world-class arbitral institutions, and the depth of legal and professional services. London hears a significant proportion of the world’s international commercial arbitrations, spanning sectors including banking, energy, shipping, insurance, construction, and technology.

The London Court of International Arbitration

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is one of the oldest and most respected arbitral institutions in the world, founded in 1892. The LCIA administers arbitrations under its own rules, which are designed for flexibility, efficiency, and party autonomy. The LCIA Arbitration Rules (currently the 2020 edition) provide a comprehensive framework for the conduct of international arbitrations, including provisions on the constitution of the tribunal, the conduct of proceedings, and the making of awards.

Key features of the LCIA Rules include: the requirement that the tribunal consist of one or three arbitrators; the default appointment of a sole arbitrator unless the parties agree otherwise or the LCIA Court determines that three are appropriate; the power of the LCIA Court to appoint arbitrators where the parties cannot agree; and provisions for the expedited formation of the tribunal. The LCIA also offers a range of other dispute resolution services, including mediation and adjudication.

The LCIA’s institutional framework provides important procedural advantages. The LCIA Court — not to be confused with the arbitral tribunal — supervises the arbitration, appoints arbitrators, decides challenges to arbitrators, and reviews awards in draft form to ensure formal validity. The LCIA Secretariat provides administrative support throughout the proceedings. The LCIA’s fee structure is based on the time spent by the Secretariat and the arbitrators, rather than on the amount in dispute, aligning the institution’s incentives with the efficient conduct of the arbitration.

The International Chamber of Commerce in London

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Court), headquartered in Paris, also maintains a significant presence in London. Many international arbitrations conducted under the ICC Rules choose London as the seat, benefiting from English procedural law and the supportive framework of the AA 1996. The ICC Rules provide a detailed procedural framework, including provisions for case management conferences, terms of reference, and scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court.

The ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration provides practical guidance on the efficient conduct of ICC arbitrations, including directions on procedural timetables, document production, witness evidence, and hearing arrangements. London-based ICC arbitrations benefit from the extensive case law of the English courts on procedural and substantive issues arising in international arbitration.

Arbitration-Friendly Jurisdiction

English law and English courts are widely regarded as arbitration-friendly. The courts take a non-interventionist approach, respecting party autonomy and the finality of awards. The Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice has developed particular expertise in arbitration-related matters and handles applications under sections 67 to 69 of the AA 1996 with efficiency and predictability.

The English courts have demonstrated a strong pro-arbitration orientation in their approach to anti-suit injunctions. In Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (2013), the Supreme Court confirmed that English courts have power to grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, even where the arbitration is not ongoing or contemplated. The court also confirmed that such injunctions may be granted in support of foreign-seated arbitrations.

The doctrine of separability, codified in section 7 of the AA 1996, provides that the arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract. Even if the main contract is void, the arbitration agreement may survive, enabling the tribunal to determine disputes arising from the invalidity of the main contract. This principle is fundamental to the effectiveness of international arbitration.

The New York Convention

The United Kingdom is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, which it extended to its overseas territories. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to recognise and enforce arbitration agreements and awards made in other contracting states, subject only to limited grounds for refusal. Sections 100 to 104 of the AA 1996 give effect to the Convention in English law.

The English courts have taken a strongly pro-enforcement approach to the New York Convention. In Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs (2010), the Supreme Court applied the Convention’s grounds for refusal restrictively, emphasising that enforcement should be refused only where the party challenging enforcement establishes a clear ground under the Convention. The court’s approach reflects the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention and the policy of supporting international arbitration.

Arbitral Seat and Lex Arbitri

The choice of London as the seat of arbitration has important legal consequences. The AA 1996 applies as the lex arbitri, governing the procedural framework of the arbitration, the powers and duties of the tribunal, and the grounds on which the award may be challenged. The supervisory jurisdiction of the English courts extends to all arbitrations seated in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, regardless of the applicable law of the contract or the nationalities of the parties.

The English courts provide support for international arbitrations seated in London, including the power to appoint arbitrators, to grant interim measures in support of the arbitration, and to enforce the tribunal’s orders. The courts also have power to remove arbitrators for justifiable doubts as to their impartiality and to determine challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

London as a Venue

London’s attractiveness as an arbitration venue is enhanced by its legal infrastructure: the availability of QCs and barristers specialising in international arbitration; the provision of state-of-the-art hearing facilities at the IDRC (International Dispute Resolution Centre), 7 Bedford Row, and other venues; and the presence of a large and diverse community of international arbitration practitioners drawn from multiple jurisdictions and legal traditions.

Conclusion

International arbitration in London benefits from a distinctive combination of institutional excellence, legal expertise, and judicial support. The LCIA and ICC provide world-class institutional frameworks, the English courts offer predictable and non-interventionist supervision, and the New York Convention ensures the cross-border enforceability of London-seated awards. London is therefore likely to remain a leading global centre for international commercial arbitration.