The English courts have recently published the Commercial Court Report for 2023-24 (the Report).¹ The Report provides an overview of the caseload of the Commercial Court and Admiralty Court over the past year and reveals (among other trends) a sustained increase in arbitration claims.

Trends in arbitration claims

Arbitration-related matters continue to represent a substantial portion of the Commercial Court's workload, accounting for approximately 20% of all claims issued. A breakdown of arbitration claims in 2023-24 and in the two preceding periods is set out below.

Key trends include:

• Section 44 (interim relief): A 150% increase in applications for injunctions and other interim relief compared to 2022-23 and a 230% increase compared with the 2021-22 period.
• Section 67 (jurisdiction): A 242% increase in jurisdiction challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 between 2022-23 and 2023-24, though this represents a decrease of 11% when compared with the 2021-22 period. The success rate remains low, with only one successful challenge among the eight applications determined so far.
• Section 68 (serious irregularity): A 37% increase in section 68 applications as compared with 2022-23, though there were still fewer applications than in 2021-22. None of the section 68 applications determined to date were successful.
• Section 69 (point of law): A 40% increase in section 69 applications (and a 30% increase when compared with 2021-22). As with section 67 and 68 applications, the success rate is low: of the 10 section 69 applications for which permission to appeal has been granted, only one appeal was ultimately successful.

The processing time for section 69 applications has improved, with the average time for permission decisions reduced from 121 to 111 days and the average time for determination of applications where permission was granted (from receipt of claim to final decision) decreasing significantly from 172 to 110 days.

Comment

While the volume of arbitration claims appears at first glance to have increased significantly across the board, a comparison with the 2021-22 period reveals that with the exception of section 44 applications (which has increased more than twofold in two years) and section 69 applications (which was the subject of a 30% increase), the volume of claims has in fact reverted to 2021-22 levels following a dip in 2022-23.

While the Report does not comment on the underlying causes of these trends, the reduction in section 67 and 68 applications (and, to some extent, section 69 applications) in the 2022-23 period and subsequent increase across all arbitration claims in 2023-24 may in part reflect fluctuations in the volume of English-seated arbitrations. For example, both the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) reported a drop in the number of new arbitration claims in 2021, which may have impacted the figures for arbitration challenges in 2022-23.³ The reasons for the significant increase in section 44 applications are less obvious: notably, the provision does not empower the English courts to grant anti-suit injunctions (which are instead granted under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981) and therefore the recent suite of anti-suit injunctions granted by the English courts to restrain Russian proceedings in breach of arbitration agreements do not account for the increase.⁴

Conclusion

The fact that arbitration claims continue to account for a significant proportion of Commercial Court work highlights the consistently high number of London-seated arbitrations. As was announced by Queen Mary School of International Arbitration during Paris Arbitration Week this month, London remains the preferred choice of arbitral seat by 34% of survey participants, above Singapore, Hong Kong and Paris.⁵

While the modernisation of the Arbitration Act 1996 (which we discuss here) is likely to bolster London's popularity as an arbitral seat, it remains to be seen whether this will impact the number of arbitration claims brought in future. In particular, the changes modify the procedure for section 67 jurisdiction challenges (which may result in a reduction in section 67 challenges) and confirm that the courts have the power under section 44 of the Act to make orders in relation to third parties.

In the meantime, the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) has recently announced the establishment of an Arbitration Claims List from 1 July 2025 which will hear arbitration claims listed in or transferred to the LCCC requiring a substantive hearing. It is anticipated that this will help facilitate resolution of smaller value claims (of up to c. £8 million) should the number of arbitration claims continue to rise in future years.

1. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/commercial-court-annual-report-2023-24/.↩
2. Figures obtained from the Commercial Court Report for 2021-22.↩
3. https://www.ciarb.org/news-listing/numbers-don-t-lie-international-commercial-arbitration-statistics-2023/.↩
4. Exceptionally, in QD v. QYP [2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm), the applicant relied on both section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The High Court confirmed that the latter was the only provision which could be relied upon for the grant of anti-suit relief.↩
5. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/london-and-singapore-top-and-ai-incoming-says-queen-mary-survey.↩