London and Singapore have been ranked as the two most preferred arbitration seats in the world.[1]  Illustrating the fierce competition between them, both the United Kingdom and the Singapore governments have looked to reform and modernise their arbitration legislation.

When announcing that the new English Arbitration Act 2025 (the AA) had received Royal Asset on 24 February 2025, the United Kingdom government stated: “[m]odernising arbitration law will ensure the UK remains the global destination of choice for the legal sector, outstripping competitors such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Paris.”[2] The new AA followed a review of the prior Act by the Law Commission in 2023 and extensive public consultation.[3]

Shortly afterwards the Singapore government announced a review of Singapore’s international arbitration legislation, the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA), which was most recently amended in December 2021.

The key changes to the English AA are summarised below together with details of the Singaporean government’s public consultation on Singapore’s IAA. The AA will apply to any arbitration seated in England and Wales or arbitration related court proceedings commenced on or after the date of the AA’s entry into force (expected to be announced shortly).

1          Key changes to the English Arbitration Act (AA)

1.1      New rule on the governing law of the arbitration agreement (section 6A(1))

The new section 6A(1) now provides that an arbitration agreement will be governed by the law expressly agreed by the parties to apply, failing which, it will be governed by the law of the seat of the arbitration. The validity and interpretation of the arbitration agreement will be determined by applying the governing law.

This statutory rule replaces the previous common law position in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 that if the parties have not specified the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, the parties’ choice of the law governing the contract will apply to the arbitration agreement.

The AA also clarifies that parties’ choice of law applicable to the contract “does not constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement”.[4] Accordingly, general governing law clauses will not automatically apply to the arbitration clause contained in the contract unless expressly stated to do so. Parties should review their standard arbitration clauses in order to ensure that they are expressly specifying the applicable governing law.

1.2      Revised framework for challenges to substantive jurisdiction (section 67)

Section 67 allows a party to challenge a jurisdictional award or a merits award on the basis that the tribunal lacks substantive jurisdiction.

The AA now provides for additional remedies for successful challenges to awards on jurisdictional grounds including (i) remitting the award to the tribunal (in whole or in part) for reconsideration or (ii) declaring that the award (in whole or in part) has no effect.[5]

The new section 67 also restricts the ability of a party to raise new grounds or evidence in a jurisdictional challenge and the court from re-hearing evidence put to the tribunal. Section 67 states that a ground cannot be raised and evidence must not be heard by the court unless the applicant shows that it could not “with reasonable diligence” have discovered the ground or put the evidence before the tribunal at the time.[6]

1.3      Arbitrator’s statutory duty to disclose conflicts

The AA now includes a new section 23A codifying the arbitrators’ continuing duty under common law[7] to disclose circumstances which might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality in relation to the proceedings or potential proceedings concerned.[8] This duty extends to circumstances “of which the individual ought reasonably to be aware”.[9]

1.4      Strengthened arbitrator immunity against liability for resignations and applications for removal

The AA now expressly protects arbitrators from liability for resignations and applications for their removal. Arbitrators cannot be held liable for their resignation unless the resignation is shown to be “in all the circumstances, unreasonable.”[10] The AA also clarifies that arbitrators are not liable for the costs of court proceedings seeking their removal unless any act or omission of the arbitrator in connection with the proceedings is shown to have been in bad faith.[11]

The Law Commission’s final report emphasises the importance of arbitrator immunity for two reasons:[12]

• It supports an arbitrator to make robust and impartial decisions without fear that a party will express their disappointment by suing the arbitrator; and,
• It supports the finality of the dispute resolution process by preventing a party who is disappointed with losing the arbitration from bringing further proceedings against the arbitrator.

The arbitrator’s expanded immunity under the AA is a welcome change to reinforce arbitrators’ independence and impartiality, as well as support the finality of the arbitration proceedings.

1.5      Express powers of summary disposal

Early determination and summary processes are available under several prominent arbitration rules.[13] This is now also provided for by the AA, which gives arbitrators the right to make an award on a summary basis in relation to a claim or issue arising in a claim if the tribunal considers that a party has no real prospect of either (i) succeeding on the claim or issue, or (ii) succeeding in the defence of the claim or issue.[14] This provision is non-mandatory, meaning that it is subject to the contrary agreement of the parties.

1.6      Clarification of court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings and in support of emergency arbitrators (section 44)

Clause 9 of the AA now clarifies that the court’s powers to make orders in support of arbitration proceedings under section 44 are also available against third parties. These include the powers to make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, making orders relating to property the subject of the proceedings, the sale of goods the subject of the proceedings and the granting of an interim injunction or appointment of a receiver. Further, a third party will have full rights of appeal in respect of any order made against it under section 44.[15]

In addition, clause 8 provides that the enforcement mechanisms available to arbitrators and tribunals under sections 41, 42 and 44 are also available to emergency arbitrators.[16] These changes clarify that emergency arbitrators’ decisions can be enforced in the same way that tribunals’ decisions can.

2          Public consultation on Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime and International Arbitration Act 1994

Nearly a month after the reforms to English arbitration law, on 21 March 2025, Singapore’s Ministry of Law (MinLaw) launched a public consultation to seek feedback on Singapore’s international arbitration regime and the IAA. The public consultation will run for 6 weeks, ending on 2 May 2025.[17]

The IAA came into force 30 years ago on 1 January 1995, pursuant to which Singapore adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) (Model Law) as the legal framework for international arbitration proceedings.

Similarly to England’s motivation for reform, Singapore is doing its part to ensure that Singapore remains an attractive seat for arbitrations. MinLaw commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) to conduct a study on the international arbitration regime in Singapore and the IAA. MinLaw is inviting members of the public to provide views on SIDRA’s report, outlining eight issues it will focus on:[18]

• Whether to confer the power on the court to make cost orders for arbitral proceedings following a successful setting aside of an award;
• Whether separate cost principles should be applied in respect of unsuccessful setting aside applications;
• Whether to introduce a leave requirement for appeals to the Court of Appeal arising from a High Court decision in a setting aside application;
• Whether the time limit to file a setting aside application should be reduced;
• Whether a right of appeal to the court on questions of law is desirable;
• How to ascertain the governing law of the arbitration agreement;
• Whether the review of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should be conducted by way of an appeal or a rehearing; and
• Whether the summary disposal powers of arbitral tribunals should be set out in the IAA.

The public consultation paper is available online.[19]

3          Conclusion

Competition is fierce for cities vying to be arbitration hubs. The modernisation and reform of the legal framework for arbitration in England and Wales will be welcomed by parties using London as a seat.

Not wanting to be outshone, Singapore is once again reviewing its arbitration laws but should be careful to not change the essence of Singapore’s attractiveness as a Model Law seat. Having some differentiation between seats offers parties options.

[1] “2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a changing world”, p. 6, available here.

[2] “Boost for UK economy as Arbitration Act receives Royal Assent” (UK Government Press Release dated 24 February 2025), available here.

[3] “Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final report and bill”, Law Commission 5 September 2023, available here.

[4] See section 6A(2) of the Act.

[5] See section 67(3)(c) and 67(3)(e) of the Act.

[6] See section 67(3C)(b) of the Act.

[7]  Halliburton v Chubb [2020] UKSC 48

[8] Section 23A(2) and 23A(3)(a) of the Act.

[9] Section 23A(3)(b) of the Act.

[10] Section 29(4) of the Act.

[11] Section 24(5A) of the Act.

[12] “Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final report and bill”, Law Commission 5 September 2023, available here, p. 43, para. 5.7.

[13] See, e.g., SIAC Rules 2025 (r. 47), HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (art. 43), LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 (art. 22.1(viii)), ICSID Arbitration Rules 2022 (r. 41).

[14] Section 39A(1) of the Act.

[15] Section 44(7) of the Act.

[16] Section 41 concerns the powers of the tribunal in case of the party’s default, section 42 the enforcement of peremptory orders of tribunals and section 44 the court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings.

[17] “MinLaw seeks feedback on Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime and the International Arbitration Act 1994”, (Ministry of Law Press Release dated 21 March 2025),  available here.

[18] “MinLaw seeks feedback on Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime and the International Arbitration Act 1994”, (Ministry of Law Press Release dated 21 March 2025), available here.

[19] “MinLaw seeks feedback on Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime and the International Arbitration Act 1994”, (Ministry of Law Press Release dated 21 March 2025),  available here.