Enforcement

Enforcement

This subtopic provides practical guidance on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in the courts of England and Wales, and related matters.

This subtopic primarily provides guidance on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards under English and Welsh law and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), which applies, with some exceptions, to arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Guidance on related court procedure is limited to the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand). Practitioners may find some of the guidance relevant to arbitrations seated outside these jurisdictions.

For information on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in other jurisdictions, see: International arbitration—enforcing international arbitral awards—overview.

To compare how arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in jurisdictions around the world, please see our International Comparator Tool.

An introduction to recognising and enforcing international arbitral awards

At the end of arbitration proceedings an arbitral tribunal will, typically, issue a final arbitral award on the merits of the parties’ dispute. In many cases, compliance with the tribunal’s

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

SCC publishes Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum 2025 – Nordic Arbitration: A Strategic Choice for Business

The SCC Arbitration Institute has published Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum 2025 – Nordic Arbitration: A Strategic Choice for Business, a comprehensive volume showcasing contributions from leading practitioners and academics following the inaugural Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum held in Stockholm on 11 March 2025. The publication explores the strategic advantages of choosing Nordic seats for arbitration, highlighting the region’s neutrality, efficiency, and strong rule-of-law traditions. It also features the 2025 Survey Report on Nordic Arbitral Institutions and the 2024 Survey on Challenging Arbitral Awards in the Nordics, offering insight into current trends, institutional practices, and procedural developments across Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.

Arbitration weekly highlights—30 October 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England & Wales, including a UK Supreme Court judgment, case reports from Hong Kong, Singapore the USA and updates from ACICA. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

ASA announces 2026 summit programme and early bird registration

The Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) has announced that the Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026 will take place from 14–16 January in Geneva, followed by 16–18 January in Crans-Montana, bringing together global experts and professionals to explore the latest developments in arbitration. The third event will feature the ASA below 40 Seminar, the Innovation Conference and the ASA Winter Conference, with an early bird registration at CHF 748 until 20 November 2025. Prominent speakers include representatives from major firms and institutions such as Schellenberg Wittmer, Clifford Chance, CMS, ICC, and AAA/ICDR.

One arbitration, two courts, multiple injunctions (MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: This dispute is a rare case of two competing court interventions in relation to an arbitration. A non-seat court in Delhi decided to exercise certain supervisory functions by issuing an anti-arbitration injunction. The seat court in Singapore disagreed that the non-seat court had the jurisdiction to do so, and also issued an anti-suit injunction. EPIL (the contractor) sought to set aside a Singapore-seated partial award in the Singapore High Court. The Singapore High Court (as the seat court) dismissed EPIL’s setting aside application, and its attempt to introduce apparent bias of an arbitrator as an additional ground for setting aside. While EPIL brought another challenge application against the same arbitrator in Singapore, it has commenced proceedings in the Delhi Court also to challenge the arbitrator, and to enjoin the counterparty (MSA, the sub-contractor) from continuing with the Arbitration. The Singapore Court first granted an interim anti-suit injunction for the Delhi Proceedings. But the Delhi Proceedings carried on, and led to an interim anti-arbitration injunction by the Delhi Proceedings. The Singapore Court in its judgment granted a permanent anti-suit injunction against EPIL in relation to the Delhi Proceedings, finding also that the Delhi Court had no power to intervene in the Arbitration. Written by Violet Huang, counsel at Colin Seow Chambers.