Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

QUICK READ

English Courts cannot compel a non-party to an arbitral agreement to give evidence in support of arbitration. That is the impact of the Commercial Court's decision in AB v CDE handed down earlier this month.

Until now, many practitioners will have understood the Court to have that power, one which arises out of the wording of s.44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, the Court held that its powers under s.44 only extend to parties to the arbitration agreement, and it is only those parties (and not third parties) which it can compel to give evidence.

Some may say this is a surprising decision. The English courts have traditionally favoured the arbitral process and engaged so as to promote its efficiency. Where the arbitral tools are insufficient to dispense justice effectively the courts have powers to help the process along. If those courts are unable to compel third parties to the arbitration to give evidence, then that arguably leads to a less efficient process. While there are related powers under s.43, those are less extensive than the powers envisaged by s.44.

Then there is the question of what is meant by a party to an arbitration agreement, and where the line gets drawn. This is particularly so where corporate parties are concerned. Who – in the context of a corporate – is to be regarded as a party to the agreement for the purpose of giving witness evidence? Officers? Employees? Shareholders?

While the decision is well reasoned, there may be doubt as to whether it is the right outcome. This may be one which needs revisiting.

Note: In April 2020, the English Court of Appeal reversed this judgement, holding that the powers under s.44 of the Arbitration Act, at least in so far as they apply to the taking of witness evidence, do extend to third parties. Accordingly, the Court ordered that evidence be taken from the third party by way of deposition before an examiner. The Court was keen to emphasise that the decision was only in relation to the taking of evidence and did not extend more broadly to the interpretation of other aspects of s.44 and their applicability to third parties.

Rechtsgebiete und Gruppen Disputes & Investigations Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

In dieser Serie

Disputes & Investigations

The sting and the tale

Andrew Howell and Natalia Faekova unpack an extraordinary case. A Mexican billionaire's strong fraud claim. Former Israeli intelligence operatives hired to target the defendant's solicitor. Secret recordings over wine and dinner. A judge who called it 'anathema to civil litigation' but may have been 'too lenient'.

19. November 2025

Disputes & Investigations

Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents

During an LSLA lecture on transparency and open justice, Mrs Justice Cockerill, recently appointed as Deputy Head of Civil Justice, outlined a pilot practice direction (PD) that will place select court documents squarely in the public domain via a new, public-facing side of the electronic court file (CE-File).

21. Oktober 2025

Disputes & Investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review

21. April 2021

Disputes & Investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?

12. Januar 2021

Disputes & Investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

In dieser Serie

Related Insights

The UK's economic crime revolution: navigating the new era of corporate criminal liability

Staying out of court – the in-house playbook for proactive conflict resolution

Key takeaways from London International Disputes Week 2024