ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice Contributed by: James Herring, Nathalie Allen and David Wigg, Addleshaw Goddard
Costs The costs include the applicable court fee (as of June 2026, GBP80 in the High Court or GBP54 in the Coun - ty Court), as well as legal costs. Additional court fees will be payable when applying for execution against the award debtor’s assets. The legal costs will depend on the amount of work involved and whether enforce - ment is disputed. 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Grounds for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of New York Convention Awards Under Section 103 of the 1996 Act Unless there is a recognised ground for refusing enforcement under Section 103 of the 1996 Act, the courts of England and Wales are bound to recog - nise and enforce foreign awards under the New York Convention. The grounds for refusal to recognise and enforce a foreign award include the following. • A party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement was not valid (Section 103 (2)(a) and (b) of the 1996 Act). • Proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings was not given (or the other party was otherwise unable to present their case) (Section 103 (2)(c) of the 1996 Act). • The award deals with a difference not contemplat - ed by, or not falling within, the terms of the submis - sion to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration (Section 103 (2)(d) of the 1996 Act). This is subject to Section 103 (4) of the 1996 Act, which provides that an award that contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be recognised or enforced to the extent that it contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration that can be sepa - rated from those matters not submitted. • The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the country in which the arbitration took place (Section 103 (2)(e) of the 1996 Act). • The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or
under the law of which, it was made (Section 103 (2)(f) of the 1996 Act). • The matter was not capable of settlement by way of arbitration or it would be contrary to public pol - icy to recognise or enforce the award (Section 103 (3) of the 1996 Act) – for example, criminal mat - ters or where there is a statutory right to be heard before a different tribunal (such as an employment tribunal) – or the objective under the contract that was the subject of the award was illegal under English law. These grounds may be raised by the court on its own initiative. Of note, the changes introduced by the 2025 Act restrict a party challenging an award on jurisdictional grounds from raising arguments and evidence that they did not put before the tribunal during the arbitra - tion itself, unless the arguments and evidence could not have been reasonably discovered during the arbi - tration. The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 The courts of England and Wales are obliged to rec - ognise an ICSID award as if it were their own final judgment, and recent case law has confirmed that the English courts consider a state signing up to the ISCID Convention to constitute a waiver of state immunity in accordance with Section 2 of the State Immunity Act through Article 54 of the ICSID Convention. The exception to the recognition obligation is where the enforcement of the ICSID award would give rise to a breach of any English law that the courts of England and Wales are required to apply. Grounds for Refusing Enforcement of an Arbitral Award Made in England and Wales Leave to enforce an award shall not be given where, or to the extent that, the person against whom it is sought to be enforced shows that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction to make the award (Section 66 (3) of the 1996 Act). This mandatory ground for refusing enforcement is, however, subject to the loss of the right to object (provided for at Section 73 of the 1996 Act). This is on the basis that the party to the arbitral proceedings takes part, or continues to take part, in the proceedings without making an objection to jurisdiction or failure to comply with the arbitration
158 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook