The UK Tweaked Its Arbitration Statute – Should the US?

The United Kingdom has decided its arbitration law needed some housekeeping. After nearly thirty years,, the Arbitration Act 1996 has been updated. The new Arbitration Act 2025 received Royal Assent in February and took effect August 1. No one should confuse it with sweeping reform, but it’s a sensible tune-up. That is the sort of thing that keeps London a leading venue for commercial disputes.

Key Reforms in the 2025 Act

1. Governing Law for Arbitration Agreements.

Section 6A answers a question courts and parties have circled for years: What law applies to the arbitration agreement when the contract doesn’t say? The new answer is simple: the law of the seat. This avoids the “closest connection” guessing game from Enka v. Chubb that earlier applied and brings predictability back to that key threshold issue.

2. Jurisdictional Challenges.

Sections 32 and 67 tighten the rules for relitigating jurisdiction in court. If the tribunal has heard the issue and both sides participated, courts will revisit it only in truly unusual circumstances. This should reduce time-consuming detours to courts and appeals, keeping cases on track.

3. Summary Disposition.

Tribunals are given the power to dismiss claims or defenses with “no real prospect of success.” Many already did this when appropriate. The statute now makes the authority explicit and removes hesitation in cases where there is no reason to waste time and money arbitrating a meritless case. .

4. Emergency Arbitrators.

The Act formally recognizes emergency arbitrators, bringing the statute in line with institutional practice. Parties needing quick relief now know where to go..

5. Disclosure Duties.

Section 23A clarifies disclosure requirements. It requires arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might reasonably raise questions about impartiality. The duty continues throughout the case. Of course, there already disclosure requirements, but formalizes them.

6. Arbitrator Immunity.

Sections 24 and 29 clarify when arbitrators may be held liable for resignations or challenges to their appointment. Unless they act in bad faith or unreasonably, they are protected. This encourages service as an arbitrator, not fear of litigation.

7. Court Support.

Courts are now able to make supportive orders involving third parties, for example, to preserve evidence or goods. The point is simple: an arbitration seated in London should function smoothly, with the courts available when needed.

London’s Continuing Role

London has long been a favored arbitration seat based on commercially minded courts, deep experience with complex disputes, and a body of law widely used in international commerce. The 2025 Act should help preserve that reputation, and signals the UK intends to retain its status as a favored seat.

Across the Atlantic – The Federal Arbitration Act

In the United States, arbitration still runs under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925—a statute old enough to remember the Charleston. Except for a 2022 amendment limiting arbitration in sexual-assault and harassment cases, the FAA has been largely unchanged.

It contains no provisions for emergency arbitrators, no statutory summary-disposition power, and no rule tying the governing law of the arbitration agreement to the seat. Arbitration providers like AAA and JAMS have filled in many of these gaps with thoughtful and comprehensive sets of rules, so arbitration can get by and even thrive here in the U.S. Still, the UK’s example provides food for thought.

Enter Politics

So, should the United States consider updating the FAA? As a matter of policy, the answer seems obvious.

But as a matter of politics, the answer is equally obvious: not anytime soon. Congress is divided, the calendar is full, and arbitration reform is nowhere near the top of anyone’s list

In fact, the main arbitration issue now in the public eye here is not how to improve commercial arbitration. The focus is on what critics call “forced arbitration.” Arbitration has gone way beyond its origins in resolving commercial disputes. Corporations are now including arbitration clauses in contracts with employees and consumers that foreclose jury trials, class actions, and meaningful appellate review. So, you can expect any reforms in the FAA would focus on that side of things rather than making commercial arbitration — whether international or domestic — more efficient.

Still, some reform has taken place at the state level. Many states have enacted a revised version of the Uniform Arbitration Act, although, curiously, they are not particularly uniform. And California reformed its state arbitration act to make it a more friendly form for international arbitration.

The Bottom Line

For the moment, the FAA will continue as written—about a century ago.