Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Mance Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Mance (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make just a very brief intervention. First, I disclose that, since retiring from practice as an arbitrator in the Supreme Court, I have also taken part in the representations which were made to the Law Commission, and indeed met with it, and I was one of the judgment writers in a case called Dallah against the Government of Pakistan, which forms part of the background to the clause which amends Section 67.

I echo the congratulations to the Law Commission on its responsiveness and diligence in this matter. The fact that the most significant clause in practical terms emerged only part way through the consultation process shows the commission’s willingness to listen. The way it has dealt with this seems largely satisfactory. I hear what was said about the words “of itself”, which must be read against the background that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffman said, express agreement otherwise is required. There may be a difference regarding Scottish law here, which says simply

“Unless the parties otherwise agree”.


It does not require them “expressly” otherwise to agree. However, that sort of nuance will probably not be decisive. I suspect that the courts will make good sense of Clause 2, even though it looks a bit awkward.

I will say a few words on the important question: what is the approach to review? This will depend in part on the nature of the rules that are permitted to be made under Clause 11. However, I heard the Minister say that the aim was that the challenge should not be de novo. That is an oversimplification; the position is quite nuanced. In new subsection (3C), provision is understandably made for circumstances whereby someone, having argued a jurisdictional point before a tribunal, then seeks to raise objections that they could have raised but did not previously, or seeks to allow evidence that they could have adduced but did not before the tribunal. Not surprisingly, that sort of conduct, without good excuse, potentially will be sanctioned, assuming rules giving effect to new subsections (3C)(a) and (b) are passed.

Otherwise, the scene is largely discretionary. New subsection (3B) simply indicates what type of provision may be made by rules where the tribunal has already ruled, and new subsection (3C)(c) prescribes that,

“evidence that was heard by the tribunal must not be re-heard by the court, unless the court considers it necessary in the interests of justice.”

Like my noble friend Lord Verdirame, I emphasise that it can be important to retain the ability for a court to review de novo the jurisdictional basis on which a tribunal acted, so long as it does not fall foul of one of the situations that I mentioned. It is wrong for a tribunal’s analysis of its own jurisdiction to be axiomatically final. That would be a classic case of bootstrapping and there is a considerable risk—which, I am sure, escapes no one —of conferring on to individuals the power to be arbiters of their own powers. It is healthy to have a review.

That is also internationally contemplated. Take the New York convention, which contemplates that the court of the seat will have an important role in reviewing, among other things, the jurisdictional basis of an arbitrator’s activity if the arbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction in setting aside their award. The convention also contemplates that enforcement courts may have a parallel role, although their activity may be subject to considerations of issues of stop law and abuse of process if there has been a prior decision by the court of the seat or, indeed, by another enforcement court.

I join my noble friend Lord Verdirame in what he said on this area. Otherwise, I strongly commend the Bill.