Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Committee do consider the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, as our learned Chairman has just indicated, the procedure is, as I understand it, that we will formally move a Motion for Second Reading on the Floor of the Chamber after this debate and then I will move a Motion that the Bill be referred to a Special Public Bill Committee for further consideration. It is a kind of hybrid Bill procedure because this is a Law Commission Bill following the Law Commission report of 5 September 2023, which contained a draft Bill.

I should say at the outset that there are two changes to the draft Bill presented by the Law Commission. First, Clause 1(3) of the Law Commission version provided that the Bill would not apply to any existing arbitration agreement. That caused a certain amount of concern because there are many thousands of existing arbitration agreements going back many years and, if that situation had prevailed, we would have had a dual system for a very long time, as old arbitration agreements became subject to arbitration. The Bill now provides that its changes do not apply to arbitrations that have already commenced, as distinct from existing arbitration agreements. I have taken the precaution of checking with the law officers that that is regarded as satisfactory and that it is in line with earlier precedent in relation to the Arbitration Act 1996, which this Bill amends. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Bill now extends to Northern Ireland, which is thought to be consistent with policy. It does not extend to Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, well knows. Scotland has its own regime under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010.

Following those introductory comments, I will briefly take your Lordships through the Bill, conscious as I am that almost everyone in the Room knows much more about it than I do. I have a certain sense of déjà vu, as this is not unlike appearing once again in front of the Supreme Court, or the House of Lords as it was, considering the galaxy of knowledge and experience that we have before us this afternoon. Your Lordships well know that the arbitral process is of great importance and value, particularly to the commercial community of this country, which is a most important centre for international arbitration. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes to which the parties willingly submit and, in the Government’s view, it should be promoted and kept up to date.

The background to this Bill is the decision by the Lord Chancellor in 2021 to ask the Law Commission to review the Arbitration Act 1996, which contains the present law—I know that certain noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go back well before that and have lived this development over many years. The 1996 Act contains a thorough code of the principles and practice of arbitration in this country. This Bill is intended to bring that structure and framework up to date and ensure that we remain abreast of international developments and that London and these jurisdictions remain competitive on the international scene. Arbitrations in England and Wales generate some £2.5 billion annually in arbitral and legal aid fees alone and in 2021, according to the Law Commission, London was the world’s most popular seat for international commercial arbitration, notably in banking, insurance, trade and other businesses.

Your Lordships will be very familiar with the provisions of the Bill, but I will briefly summarise them. Clause 1 provides that the law governing the arbitration will, unless the parties agree otherwise, be the law of the seat of arbitration. As noble Lords know—I will try to get this completely right—in contractual disputes, the contractual liability will normally be determined by the proper law of the contract, but the contract may provide that the arbitration be elsewhere. A contract may be governed by Russian law but have arbitration in London. In that event, what is known as the curial or supervisory jurisdiction is governed by English law; for example, whether an arbitrator should be removed or to which court some challenge to the arbitral award may be made will be the subject of the law of the seat—in that example, English law.

However, suppose the question is whether the dispute is within the agreement to arbitrate in the first place. In my example, would it be governed by the Russian law of the contract or the English law of the seat? This question has exercised the courts over many years and there have been different views and decisions. In Enka v Chubb in 2020, the Supreme Court, in a split 3:2 decision, arrived at a somewhat complex test for deciding exactly which law governed the agreement to arbitrate. That gave rise, among other things, to a desire for certainty and a clear and simple rule. That simple rule is now provided in Clause 1, which provides that it would normally be the law of the seat unless the parties agree otherwise.

My understanding is that that is already in line with certain standard arbitration agreements and the rules of bodies that provide arbitration services. That is the essential provision of Clause 1. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is well aware, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will thereby align with Scotland, so we will have a common position across the four jurisdictions.

Clause 2 provides a statutory duty on arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality, to maintain the integrity of arbitration in this country. There have been some well-publicised incidents, as a result of which it should be put beyond doubt that arbitrators have a full duty to disclose anything that may reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality.

Clauses 2 and 3 support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions without fear that they might incur some personal liability. In the case of an application for the removal of an arbitrator, Clause 3 provides that the arbitrator will not be liable personally for costs unless they have acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for resigning unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable. Those provisions effectively support the independence of arbitrators.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with jurisdiction. Under Clause 5, if there is a challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on which the tribunal has already ruled, the losing party cannot go directly to the court on a preliminary point to challenge that; it must await the final arbitral award and then make that challenge under Section 67. That in effect rules out earlier challenges to the court on jurisdiction.

Clause 6 clears up something of a mystery: when an arbitral tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction, does it none the less have jurisdiction to award costs? Clause 6 provides that it does; there is a power to award costs even if the arbitral tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction over the dispute in question. Clause 7 effectively replicates the summary judgment procedures available in the court and empowers arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis if a particular issue has no real prospect of success.

Clauses 8 and 9 pertain to the powers of the court. Clause 8 empowers it to make court orders reinforcing the orders of emergency arbitrators. These powers already exist in relation to normal arbitrators, but on occasion emergency arbitrators are appointed, so this makes sure that the existing powers to issue court orders apply equally where there is an emergency arbitrator. Clause 9—again, similarly to normal court proceedings—entitles arbitrators to make orders in support of arbitral proceedings against third parties, most likely banks that may be holding relevant funds. That provision resolves a certain conflict in the case law and aligns the position of arbitral proceedings with that in court proceedings.

Clause 10 is essentially a tidying-up measure. There are various bases for challenging an arbitral award in the 1996 Act: Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, Section 68 for serious irregularity or Section 69 for a point of law. Clause 10 ensures that, where there is a challenge under Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, the remedies available to the court are the same as they would be were the challenge under Sections 68 or 69, to bring a certain degree of consistency across the three main ways of challenging arbitral awards.

Under Clause 11, if an arbitral party applies to the court to challenge an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 67, that challenge should not be a full rehearing with new evidence and arguments—it should, in effect, be decided on the existing record so that the court does not have to restart or do the whole thing afresh on the basis of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That will streamline and simplify the operation of such challenges.

There are then some quite short, technical provisions. Clause 12 clarifies certain time limits. Clause 13 codifies the law in relation to the staying of legal proceedings and Clause 14 streamlines the process of applying to the court under the 1996 Act for certain preliminary rulings on jurisdiction and points of law. Clause 15 repeals certain sections that have never been brought into force and are therefore redundant.

That is a very brief outline. I am not sure whether it was a fast trot or a slow canter. Your Lordships are much more familiar with this area than I am. The Bill is intended to increase the competitiveness of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and primarily London, as a seat of international arbitration, to foster growth in both domestic and international arbitration, to introduce a fairer and more efficient process and to reduce reliance on resort to the court. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contributions to this debate, in particular for the broad welcome that the Bill has received from the Committee. I take it on myself—authorised, if I may, on behalf of this Committee —to pass on our warm thanks to the Law Commission and its team, one of whose representatives are here, for the extraordinary work that has been done on the Bill, and indeed to all those who participated in the consultation. As has been said, it is a model of its kind. All legislation should aspire to reach this kind of standard. That is the first thing I need to say.

Secondly, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on his tour de force, going back to 1698—almost as if he was there in 1698, though not quite perhaps—and thank Mr Landau for coming today and blazing an earlier trail, in which we follow with diffidence as the years go by. We are well aware of the points he made on the importance of achieving a good balance between the courts and arbitration on the one hand, and promoting arbitration in this country and pursuing that objective, as the Law Society has today underlined.

With those introductory comments, perhaps I could deal briefly with at least some of the points that have been made, bearing in mind that we still have the Public Bill Committee to come; further points can, of course, be raised then. The equality point, raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a difficult one. The Law Commission decided not to proceed to do anything about it but it is something that we can, of course, keep under review. When the Equality Act next comes up for consideration, I anticipate that this point would need to be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the Nigeria case and the tension inherent in arbitration between privacy and transparency. I will make two points about that case. First, in a sense, it established that London is capable of dealing with this kind of fraud, because there was a judge who was able to expose it, and a procedure and, in the end, it was demonstrated that the supervisory jurisdiction in England and Wales works very well.

Secondly, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that it was almost certainly a one-off—a quite extraordinary exception to the general rule. However, the Government ought to take under advisement whether we should do anything to further establish or reinforce what is undoubtedly the case—that London is clean, to use the word of the noble and learned Lord. With the co-operation of the professions, we ought to quietly establish whether anything further should be done to ensure that that is indeed the case. However, it was a disturbing case and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, question marks remain in some cases, over some aspects of the legal profession in relation to SLAPPS, transparency and so forth. In some areas, further consideration may be necessary in due course.

I am glad that the issue with the words “of itself” in new Section 6A(2) has been drawn to the Government’s attention. Again, we should reflect on that. I think that I understand what the draftsman is driving at, but perhaps we should embark on further amendment to that section and whether it is necessary—perhaps we should consider that further.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, raised the issue of the review under Clause 11 and the whole question of what the rules of court should do and how far they should go. That may link back to our earlier discussion about the Nigeria case, because this is the court taking a very active review role. No doubt there will be a consultation in due course on the rules of court, and it will be important to bear in mind the points made today.

Those were the main points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether we planned to have an assessment in a year or two. That is a little far ahead for the Government to be looking at the moment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

However, this is an area where Governments, the profession and practitioners are constantly aware of the need for London to be competitive, fair, open and transparent and to prosper. As the years pass, this will be reviewed over time to ensure that London remains competitive by the natural play of market forces.

I think I have covered the main points raised. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Could I draw the Minister’s attention to Section 61 of the 1996 Act, which the Law Commission has not pronounced upon? This is the section on the power of the arbitrators to award costs, and how they should do so. Section 61(2) says that

“the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event”.

That is the regular jargon used in cases conducted before our law courts. At the very end of the case, the winning party gets up and asks the judge to award costs following the event—namely, that that party has won and therefore the other party should pay all the costs. That goes to the point that I was making that this should be a promotional Act, attractive to those from overseas—and how are those overseas persons meant to know or understand what

“costs should follow the event”

means?

It is more complicated than that. This came out in two cases, both under the jurisdiction of the wonderful Law Lord, Tom Bingham. When he was a mere Mr Justice, he did the case of “Catherine” in 1982—and then, when he was the Lord Justice of Appeal, he presided on the Norwegian Cruise case of April 1988. In both those cases, he did not follow the normal rule of costs following the event, because in both those cases the winning party had taken up excessive time on matters that it lost in the dispute. Therefore, it is not so simple as costs following the event and the loser paying.

What I suggest concerning this clause is that we take the opportunity during the passage of the Bill to remove that phrase and leave it as a simple judgment of the arbitrator or arbitrators—what is the fair order on costs that that they should make.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for that intervention. As far as I know, the Law Commission did not consider that specific question, so I am not entirely sure, as of now when I am on my feet, to what extent we should widen the debate in the context of this particular Bill. But I shall take his point back and further consider it, and see whether the Government have a position on the point that he very strongly makes.

Motion agreed.