Can You Challenge an Arbitral Award in England?

Key takeaways

• Three routes only: An award made in an English-seated arbitration can be challenged for lack of jurisdiction, for serious irregularity causing substantial injustice, or by appeal on a point of English law, which the parties can exclude.
• The bar is high: The courts intervene only in extreme cases. Getting the facts or the law wrong is not, by itself, a serious irregularity.
• The clock is short: A challenge must generally be brought within 28 days, after first using any available arbitral appeal or correction process.
• Fraud can undo an award: In Nigeria v P&ID, awards worth more than US$11 billion with interest were set aside because they had been obtained by fraud.

One of the main attractions of arbitration is finality. An award made by a tribunal seated in England is final and binding, and the English courts are known for their reluctance to interfere with arbitrators’ decisions. That reluctance is a strength of London as a seat, but it can come as a shock to a party that believes the tribunal got the answer badly wrong.

This article explains the limited grounds on which an award can be challenged in the English courts, the procedural requirements, the changes made by the Arbitration Act 2025 and what a party should do as soon as it receives an unfavourable award.

On what grounds can an award be challenged?

The Arbitration Act 1996 provides three routes:

• Substantive jurisdiction (section 67). A party can challenge an award on the ground that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction, for example because there was no valid arbitration agreement, the tribunal was not properly constituted or the dispute fell outside the agreement.
• Serious irregularity (section 68). A party can challenge an award for a serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award, falling within a closed list in section 68(2) and causing or likely to cause substantial injustice to the applicant.
• Appeal on a point of law (section 69). A party can appeal on a question of English law arising out of the award, but only with the agreement of all parties or the court’s permission, and only if the parties have not excluded the right of appeal.

Sections 67 and 68 are mandatory and cannot be excluded by agreement. Section 69 can be, and frequently is. An agreement to dispense with reasons for the award counts as an exclusion, and the LCIA and ICC rules, for example, contain waivers of recourse that have that effect.

What counts as a serious irregularity?

The list in section 68(2) includes a failure by the tribunal to comply with its general duty to act fairly and impartially, the tribunal exceeding its powers, failure to follow the agreed procedure, failure to deal with all the issues put to it, uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award, and the award being obtained by fraud or being contrary to public policy.

In Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43, the House of Lords endorsed the description of section 68 as a “long stop, only available in extreme cases where the tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that justice calls out for it to be corrected”. Lord Steyn emphasised that a high threshold must be met, that the requirement of substantial injustice is designed to eliminate technical and unmeritorious challenges, and that section 68 is concerned with due process, not with whether the tribunal reached the correct decision. An error of law or fact made in the exercise of a power the tribunal has is not an excess of power.

Even if an irregularity is shown, the court’s first remedy is usually to send the award back to the tribunal for reconsideration. It will set the award aside, or declare it of no effect, only if remission would be inappropriate.

Can fraud lead to an award being set aside?

Yes, and the most striking recent example shows how. In Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm), a London-seated tribunal had ordered Nigeria to pay US$6.6 billion in damages for breach of a gas supply and processing agreement, plus interest at 7%. By the time of the challenge, the sum exceeded US$11 billion. After an eight-week trial, Robin Knowles J found that P&ID had obtained the awards by fraud: its witness had given knowingly false evidence concealing bribes paid in connection with the contract, bribery had continued, and P&ID had improperly obtained and kept Nigeria’s internal and privileged legal documents during the arbitration. The awards were set aside under section 68(2)(g).

The case was exceptional. Section 68(2)(g) focuses on the conduct of the arbitration and the way the award was obtained, not on the merits of the underlying claim. But it shows that the English courts will act decisively where the integrity of the process has been compromised.

How does an appeal on a point of law work?

Where section 69 has not been excluded, permission to appeal will be given only if the court is satisfied that the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more parties, that the tribunal was asked to decide it, that on the facts found the tribunal’s decision is obviously wrong or the question is of general public importance and the decision is at least open to serious doubt, and that it is just and proper for the court to decide the question despite the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. The court usually decides permission on paper. Challenges to the tribunal’s findings of fact are not possible.

What procedural requirements apply?

• Exhaust other remedies first. A challenge cannot be brought until the applicant has used any available arbitral process of appeal or review and any available application to the tribunal to correct the award or make an additional award under section 57.
• Act within 28 days. Under section 70(3), as clarified by the 2025 Act, the application must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award or, where an arbitral appeal or correction process has been used, from the date that process concludes. The court can extend time, but requires good reasons.
• Object promptly. Under section 73, a party that takes part in an arbitration without objecting to an irregularity or to the tribunal’s jurisdiction may lose the right to raise it later, unless it did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds.
• Security. The court can order the applicant to provide security for costs, and can order that money payable under the award be paid into court or otherwise secured pending the challenge.

What did the Arbitration Act 2025 change?

For arbitrations commenced on or after 1 August 2025, two changes matter most. First, section 11 of the 2025 Act allows rules of court to limit a section 67 challenge by a party that took part in the arbitration, where the tribunal has already ruled on the objection. Subject to the interests of justice, new grounds and new evidence may not be raised unless they could not with reasonable diligence have been put before the tribunal, and evidence should not be reheard. This is a departure from the full rehearing approach in Dallah v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46. Secondly, the court now has the same range of remedies under section 67 as under sections 68 and 69, including remitting the award to the tribunal.

Challenging an award: a practical checklist

On receiving an award, businesses are likely to need to consider:

• Diary the deadline. The 28-day period, and any earlier deadline for applying to the tribunal to correct the award or deal with an omitted issue.
• The arbitration agreement. Whether any institutional rules or the clause itself exclude appeals on points of law.
• The right ground. Whether the complaint is really about jurisdiction, due process or the law, rather than a disagreement with the tribunal’s findings.
• Substantial injustice. For a section 68 challenge, whether the outcome might well have been different had the irregularity not occurred.
• Earlier objections. Whether the objection was raised during the arbitration, or could not reasonably have been.
• Where the other side may seek to enforce the award, and whether a challenge at the seat will affect enforcement elsewhere.

At Maybrook Law, we advise clients on challenging and defending arbitral awards in the English courts, and on enforcing or resisting enforcement of awards abroad. We give a frank view early on whether a challenge has realistic prospects, given how rarely the courts intervene. If you have received an award and are considering your options, please contact us promptly, as time limits are short.

This article reflects the law as at 16 October 2026. Our insights, articles and guides do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice or be an exhaustive review of all legal developments. Although every effort is made to ensure that the information provided in this article is accurate as of the publication date, please be aware that this area of law may be subject to change. Please seek legal advice before applying the information provided to any specific circumstances, transactions or legal issues.