The latest Commercial Court Report for 2023-2024 indicates that the number of arbitration applications made to the Commercial Court has been rising, although the proportion of successful claims remains low
Published last week by the Judiciary of England and Wales, the latest Commercial Court Report for 2023-2024 (the Report) offers a detailed overview of the Court’s work and notable trends in litigation. The Report also provides insight into the increasing number of arbitration applications made to the Commercial Court and their outcomes.
Arbitration activity in the Commercial Court
Arbitration applications remain an important part of the Commercial Court’s work, accounting for over 20% of claims, larger than any other category of claim before the Court. This highlights London’s continued importance as a centre for international arbitration.
The majority of the arbitration claims in the year 2023-2024 consisted of challenges to awards and applications for injunctions.
Number of applications made
Compared to the previous year, 2023-2024 saw a significant rise in challenges to awards and injunction applications. Injunction applications (s44) increased by 150%, and jurisdictional challenges (s67) jumped by 242%.
| Court Year | s44 | s67 | s68 | s69 |
| 2022-2023 | 20 | 7 | 27 | 37 |
| 2023-2024 | 50 | 24 | 37 | 52 |
| % increase | 150% | 242% | 37% | 40% |
Outcome of arbitration challenges
The Report also gives details on the outcome or status of each type of award challenge:
- s67 applications: out of 24 applications, 1 was successful, 7 were dismissed on the papers, 1 was discontinued, 2 were transferred out and 13 are still pending a decision;
- s68 applications: out of 37 applications, 5 were dismissed at hearing, 7 were dismissed on the papers, 3 were discontinued, 1 was settled, 1 was withdrawn and 20 are still pending a decision; and
- s69 applications: 1 appeal was successful, 10 had permission granted, 21 were refused permission and 19 are still pending a decision (as set out in the table below). On average, decisions to grant or refuse permission to appeal were issued within 111 days. For applications where permission was granted, the average time from receipt of claim to a final decision was 110 days. Both cases saw a reduction in time taken to reach a conclusion compared to the year 2022-2023.
Arbitration Claims List
Due to the growing number of arbitration-related applications, the London Circuit Commercial Court has recently announced the establishment of an “Arbitration Claims List” from 1 July 2025 (see the Practice Note available here). The Arbitration Claims List will be used for arbitration claims that require substantive hearings, which will be listed within specified windows each year, generally limited to the first week of each term.
Comment
Despite the overall increase in the number of challenges, the proportion of successful claims remains low, consistent with the English Court’s robust approach to upholding arbitral awards and only overturning them in truly exceptional cases.
The significant increase in s44 and s67 applications is particularly notable, and it will be interesting to see what impact the new UK Arbitration Act 2025 has on these figures in the future. As summarised in our blog post here, the new Act revises the procedure for s67 challenges by permitting new Court rules that would prevent the Court from re-hearing evidence already heard by a tribunal and prohibits parties from raising new grounds or evidence, unless the Court rules otherwise in the interests of justice. It remains to be seen whether these changes will deter prospective challenges.
Additionally, the new Act confirms that orders under s44 (e.g. for the preservation of evidence) are available against third parties and also empowers emergency arbitrators to (i) issue peremptory orders (which can result in Court-ordered compliance under s42 of the Act), and (ii) give permission for applications to the Court under s44(4). There is therefore scope for a continued increase in arbitration-related applications to the Court as parties take advantage of the new Act.
The authors would like to thank Kimia Famil Dardeshti for her assistance in writing this post.
For more information, please contact:
Craig Tevendale, Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills
craig.tevendale@hsf.com
