English reading trail: Sulamérica (2012) →
Enka (2020) →
Kabab-Ji (2021) →
Arbitration Act 2025.
The 2025 Act amends the 1996 Act. Section 6A generally makes the law of the seat the default unless the parties expressly agree otherwise; a choice of law for the main agreement alone is not an express choice for the arbitration agreement. Statutory exceptions and transitional provisions apply. The remaining provisions commenced on 1 August 2025; check whether the new rule applies to the proceedings.
Read the commencement and transition provisions ↗This is an editorial trail, not a claim that each decision overruled or directly followed the previous one.
England and Wales · Commercial · Insurance / energySulamérica v Enesa2012 · Arbitration agreement law
2012 · [2012] EWCA Civ 638 · England and Wales · Commercial · Insurance / energy
Sulamérica v Enesa
Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Issue: Arbitration agreement law
Insurance policies for a Brazilian hydroelectric project selected Brazilian law and courts but also provided for London arbitration. When proceedings began in Brazil, insurers sought an English anti-suit injunction. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction and applied English law to the arbitration agreement, considering express choice, implied choice and closest connection. Although the main contract’s law was a strong indication, the London seat and the effect of Brazilian law on the promise to arbitrate were decisive on these facts. The decision illustrates how the main contract, arbitration agreement and seat can involve different laws. Later English authorities and the 2025 statutory reforms must also be considered.
Related: Enka · Kabab-Ji
Read the judgment ↗ (opens in a new tab)England and Wales · Commercial · Construction / energyEnka v Chubb2020 · Arbitration agreement law
2020 · [2020] UKSC 38 · England and Wales · Commercial · Construction / energy
Enka v Chubb
Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Issue: Arbitration agreement law
After a fire at a Russian power plant, the insurer sued subcontractor Enka in Russia despite a London arbitration clause. The UK Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld an anti-suit injunction and treated English law as governing the arbitration agreement. Its common-law approach generally treated an express choice of law for the main contract as extending to the arbitration agreement, subject to contrary indications; absent a relevant choice, the seat was generally central to the closest-connection test. Enka became a leading English authority on the distinct laws involved in arbitration. Its common-law approach must now be read alongside section 6A and the 2025 Act’s transitional provisions.
Related: Sulamérica · Kabab-Ji
Read the judgment ↗ (opens in a new tab)England and Wales · Commercial · Franchising / foodKabab-Ji v Kout Food2021 · Consent and enforcement
2021 · [2021] UKSC 48 · England and Wales · Commercial · Franchising / food
Kabab-Ji v Kout Food
Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Issue: Consent and enforcement
A Lebanese franchisor obtained a Paris-seated ICC award against a Kuwaiti parent company that had not signed its franchise agreement. In English enforcement proceedings, the UK Supreme Court applied English law to the arbitration agreement and upheld refusal of enforcement: the parent had not become a party to that agreement. The ruling connects governing law to the practical question of consent and illustrates the significance of contractual formalities after corporate restructuring. It concerns an English enforcement court’s approach to a foreign award; it does not establish a universal rule on non-signatories. Read its reasoning alongside Enka and the later statutory reforms.
Related: Enka · Sulamérica
Read the judgment ↗ (opens in a new tab)Singapore · Commercial · Corporate transactionsBCY v BCZ2016 · Formation and governing law
2016 · [2016] SGHC 249 · Singapore · Commercial · Corporate transactions
BCY v BCZ
Court: High Court of Singapore
Issue: Formation and governing law
Negotiations over a share sale produced several unsigned drafts containing an ICC arbitration clause. One party argued that the arbitration agreement had nevertheless been concluded. The Singapore High Court held that no binding arbitration agreement had been formed: agreement on draft wording did not establish an intention to be bound before execution. The court also addressed the law governing the clause, applying New York law on the facts. BCY is valuable because it separates choice of law from the prior question of consent. Separability protects an existing arbitration agreement; it does not create one where the parties never agreed.
Related: BNA v BNB
Read the judgment ↗ (opens in a new tab)Singapore · Commercial · Industrial gasesBNA v BNB and another2019 · Seat and governing law
2019 · [2019] SGCA 84 · Singapore · Commercial · Industrial gases
BNA v BNB and another
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Issue: Seat and governing law
An industrial-gas supply contract chose PRC law and referred disputes to SIAC arbitration in Shanghai. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that Shanghai, rather than Singapore, was the legal seat and identified PRC law as governing the arbitration agreement. Choosing a Singapore-based administering institution did not itself make Singapore the seat, and a desire to preserve an arbitration agreement could not justify rewriting the parties’ bargain. The decision explains why institution and seat are separate choices. The court did not finally decide the tribunal’s jurisdiction; historical concerns about PRC law in the case should not be assumed to describe current law.
Related: BCY v BCZ
Read the judgment ↗ (opens in a new tab)