UK bolsters arbitration framework with new specialist claims list amid hive of arbitration activity

This article was co-authored by Ariane Kim Gonzalez, Trainee Solicitor.

In response to the growing popularity of arbitration as a dispute resolution method in England and Wales - and the corresponding rise in arbitration-related claims before the English Commercial Court - the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) has recently announced the introduction of a specialist list for arbitration claims issued in or transferred to the LCCC (the Arbitration Claims List). Set to take effect from 1 July 2025, the new list aims to ensure that all arbitration claims requiring substantive hearings are managed efficiently within the LCCC.

We summarise the key details of this development below and consider its potential impact on the arbitration process and the broader arbitration landscape in the UK.

Arbitration on the rise

Any passive observer of the disputes landscape in recent years will have noted the growing popularity of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. Leading arbitral institutions have reported consistent increases in their caseloads, alongside a broader global reach and higher overall value of the disputes themselves.

For example, in 2023, the London Court of International Arbitration reported a 13% increase in its caseload compared to 2022. Other institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, have reported similar trends. Key drivers of this growth include arbitration’s neutrality, confidentiality, flexibility, and its perceived speed and efficiency compared to other means of resolving legal disputes.

In addition, as highlighted in the latest Queen Mary School of International Arbitration survey, London remains the preferred seat of arbitration globally, above Singapore, Hong Kong and Paris, with 34% of survey respondents selecting it as their top choice.

Unsurprisingly therefore, the continued popularity of arbitration in this jurisdiction has been accompanied by a significant rise in arbitration-related court proceedings. According to the Commercial Court’s latest report, arbitration-related claims (defined in CPR 62.2) accounted for approximately 20% of all cases filed with the court between 2023 and 2024.

Viewed in a broader context, arbitration-related claims evidently represent a significant proportion of the court’s overall caseload and this serves to underscore the continuing debate regarding the proper role of the courts in arbitration: whether it is one of support or intervention. This question is explored further in the commentary that follows.

The majority of claims issued in 2023/24 related to challenges to arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act 1996, based on (i) lack of substantive jurisdiction of the tribunal (section 67), (ii) serious irregularity in the proceedings (section 68), or (iii) an error of law in the tribunal’s decision-making (section 69). The number of applications in each of these categories increased substantially during the same period:

• Section 67: 24 applications, up from 7 in 2022/23 — an increase of 242%.
• Section 68: 37 applications, up from 27 in 2022/23 — an increase of 37%.
• Section 69: 52 applications, up from 37 in 2022/23 — an increase of 40%.

Applications for injunctions (section 44) also saw a 150% rise in 2023/24 compared to the previous period, increasing from 20 to 50.

The marked increase in arbitration-related claims will have exerted substantial pressure on the Commercial Court, compounding existing strains on judicial capacity and administrative resources. Of the 113 applications made in 2023/24 (detailed above), 52 were pending a decision at the end of the year, representing 46% of the total.

This growing backlog underscores the structural challenges the court now faces in keeping pace with the rising volume of claims, with arbitration-related matters appearing to be a significant contributing factor. In the context of arbitration — traditionally regarded as an efficient and expeditious mode of dispute resolution — such a backlog raises concerns about its continued ability to uphold that reputation for procedural speed and overall effectiveness.

Arbitrations Claims List

Owing to the increasing number of arbitration-related applications, the LCCC has announced the introduction of a dedicated “Arbitration Claims List” for all arbitration claims issued in or transferred to the LCCC. From 1 July 2025, the Arbitration Claims List will detail any arbitration claim falling within the scope of the LCCC’s jurisdiction that requires a substantive hearing — such as challenges brought under the Arbitration Act 1996 and/or the Arbitration Act 2025, as applicable.

With the exception of urgent without notice applications, which will continue to be listed at the earliest available opportunity, all arbitration claim hearings will henceforth be assigned to four fixed hearing windows within each legal term (the Arbitration Weeks). This initiative seeks to streamline the handling of arbitration claims by facilitating earlier judicial allocation and providing parties with greater clarity regarding when — and before which seniority of judge — their claims are likely to be heard.

Moreover, when requesting a listing on the Arbitration Claims List, parties must now categorise their claim based on its complexity and the judicial resources required. Once a claim is placed on the Arbitration Claims List, it will then be for the LCCC to determine the appropriate seniority of judge required.

The allocation of arbitration-related claims to the LCCC or the Commercial Court, in the first instance, generally depends on the case’s value, complexity, and the level of judicial expertise required. The Commercial Court hears high-value or complex claims suited to specialist High Court judges, while the LCCC deals with lower-value or less complex matters, typically before Circuit Judges or Deputy High Court Judges. The introduction of the Arbitration Claims List further streamlines the handling of arbitration-related claims by enabling categorisation based on case complexity, supporting an efficient and proportionate case management process.

Confidentiality

While the introduction of both the Arbitration Claims List and Arbitration Weeks are welcome procedural enhancements, they do not alter the English courts’ approach to confidentiality in arbitration-related court proceedings.

Although arbitration is typically confidential — one of its widely recognised advantages over litigation — this does not automatically extend to arbitration‑related court proceedings in England and Wales. Neither the Arbitration Act 1996 nor, when it comes into force, the Arbitration Act 2025 (the 2025 Act) contains any express provision on confidentiality. Thus, the courts instead rely on common law and the Civil Procedure Rules to determine whether confidentiality should be preserved in arbitration‑related court proceedings.

Arbitration‑related applications are not automatically confidential. The courts operate under the principle of open justice, meaning that applications, listings, and judgments are generally public unless a party successfully applies for confidentiality measures — for example, anonymisation or redactions under CPR 39.2(4), or restrictions on access to documents under CPR 5.4C(4). However, the mere fact that parties prefer confidentiality is not determinative: the court will decide having weighed commercial sensitivity, the nature of the dispute, and the public interest in the proper administration of justice.

Hearings, by contrast, are treated differently. Under CPR 62.10, most arbitration‑related hearings are, by default, held in private unless the court orders otherwise. There are notable exceptions: hearings to determine a preliminary point of law under section 45, or appeals under section 69, are generally held in public, except at discrete stages such as the initial permission to appeal application or other preliminary threshold issues.

Judgments of arbitration-related applications are generally published, even if the hearing was private. However, the court may anonymise or redact them to preserve confidentiality where appropriate. In Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd [2021], the Court of Appeal permitted publication of a judgment over the parties’ objections, finding that the public interest in transparency outweighed their confidentiality concerns.

As demonstrated above, despite the introduction of the Arbitration Claims List and Arbitration Weeks, the default position of the English court when it comes to arbitration remains mixed. Confidentiality in arbitration‑related court proceedings, in particular, is not automatic — any departure from open justice remains the exception, not the rule.

Comment

The introduction of the Arbitration Claims List and the establishment of four dedicated Arbitration Weeks represent noteworthy developments in the arbitration landscape of England and Wales. Responding to the continued growth in arbitration and the corresponding rise in arbitration-related court proceedings, these initiatives signal a proactive effort by the judiciary to improve case management, reduce delays, and enhance procedural efficiency.

This approach reinforces the overall effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and reflects a concerted effort to maintain the UK’s position as a leading global arbitration hub amid increasing international competition. Implicit in the judiciary’s strategy is a clear message: the courts are there to support — rather than interfere with — the arbitral process.  

The timing is also noteworthy, aligning with (i) the courts’ broader push to embed alternative dispute resolution more deeply into the judicial system, and (ii) recent reforms introduced by the 2025 Act. The 2025 Act empowers emergency arbitrators to authorise applications to court under section 44 and imposes a more limited scope for jurisdictional challenges under section 67, restricting re-hearings and the introduction of new grounds of objection or new evidence except in the interests of justice. Whether these reforms will materially affect the volume or nature of arbitration-related court applications remains to be seen.

It is notable that, under the new arrangements, all but the most urgent arbitration claims will be heard given there are only four designated Arbitration Weeks each year. While this may promote judicial efficiency, there is a risk that condensing hearings into such narrow timeframes could lead to scheduling pressure or delay — especially if the volume of arbitration-related claims grows. The ultimate success of the initiative will depend on how the courts manage urgency and allocate resources throughout the year.

Overall, these reforms provide welcome clarity and structure for parties and their legal advisers. By introducing a more transparent and predictable system for managing arbitration-related court claims, the judiciary has taken a forward-looking step that should enhance the efficiency of arbitration and support the UK’s continued appeal as a premier seat for international dispute resolution.

Related articles:

• The Arbitration Act 2025: Evolutionary reform to ensure the UK maintains its place as a world-leading dispute resolution forum
• Court-mandated alternative dispute resolution is here to stay
• The LCIA publishes a new batch of decisions on challenges to arbitrators
• Arbitration: London aiming to retain its place as a world-leading dispute resolution centre