5 min read

Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”) provides a bespoke framework for appealing an arbitral award on a point of law to the Commercial Court.[1] Appeals on a point of law under section 69 are relatively rare in England and Wales. The right to appeal on a point of law is often excluded by the parties, either expressly in the arbitration agreement or by adopting institutional arbitral rules which include exclusions or waivers of the right to appeal on a point of law.

However, this right is not always excluded, and there have been a number of appeals under section 69 to the Commercial Court in recent years. 

  • As observed in the Lady Chief Justice’s Report 2025, there has been an increase in the number of claims and applications relating to arbitration (including international arbitration), which represents about 25% of the Commercial Court’s work. 
  • The minutes of the Commercial Court User Group for December 2025 indicated that the largest growth within new arbitration claims had been in section 69 appeals or claims under both section 68 and section 69, which have increased from 33 in 2020 to 60 in 2025 (by 3 December 2025).

This note considers key practical takeaways based on our experience of section 69 appeals.  Slaughter and May has acted successfully for clients in two recent notable section 69 challenges in the Commercial Court.[2] 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Under the 1996 Act, the Commercial Court has a key role in supporting, and, where necessary, supervising arbitrations seated in England and Wales.  If an arbitration is seated in England and Wales, section 69 of the 1996 Act provides a non-mandatory right of appeal to the Commercial Court.  Most institutional rules adopted by parties typically exclude appeals under section 69 (and it is rare for parties adopting such institutional rules to expressly add back in an appeal right under section 69).   However, this right is not always excluded: ad hoc arbitrations are a notable exception, including arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or the ARIAS Rules in respect of insurance and reinsurance arbitrations.

In cases where the section 69 appeal right is not excluded, there are important policy considerations about ensuring finality in arbitration and limiting judicial intervention in arbitral awards – the general principle in section 1(c) of the 1996 Act is that “the court should not intervene except as provided [in Part 1 of the 1996 Act]”.  At the same time, these considerations should be balanced against the fact that arbitral tribunals do make mistakes from time to time on points of law: correcting these mistakes through an appeal process can be important for dealing with cases justly. 

These underlying policy considerations are reflected in each of the two key stages in section 69 appeals which parties need to navigate: (1) the application for permission to appeal, and (2) the actual appeal itself, if permission is granted. 

Permission to appeal application

An appeal on a point of law under section 69 can only be brought with the Commercial Court’s permission (or “leave”), or with the agreement of the other parties to the proceedings.  

The test for obtaining the Commercial Court’s permission under section 69 is stricter than the normal test for obtaining permission to appeal in civil litigation: the Commercial Court will only grant permission under section 69 if it is satisfied (among other things) that either: (1) the tribunal’s decision on a point of law is obviously wrong – the so-called “obviously wrong” gateway (s. 69(3)(c)(i)); or (2) the question is one of general public importance and the tribunal’s decision is at least open to “serious doubt” – the so-called “general public importance” gateway (s. 69(3)(c)(ii)).  

In contrast, the normal test for permission to appeal under CPR 52 only requires either: (1) reasonable prospects of success (CPR 52.6(a)); or (2) some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard (CPR 52.6(b)).  This higher threshold for permission to appeal under section 69 reflects the policy considerations involved in appeals of arbitral awards, including limiting judicial intervention in the arbitral process.   

The appeal

While section 69 of the 1996 Act outlines the test at the permission to appeal stage, it does not address the test applied by the Commercial Court in determining whether to allow the appeal after a substantive hearing.  For the purposes of the appeal itself, the question is not whether the decision is “obviously wrong” or at least open to “serious doubt” – those are threshold questions at the application for permission stage.  Instead, the relevant question for the Commercial Court in allowing the appeal is whether or not an error of law in the arbitral award has been established (i.e. was the tribunal’s decision wrong, rather than “obviously wrong”).

It is important to bear in mind this distinction between the permission to appeal stage and the substantive appeal stage.  Permission to appeal applications under section 69 are typically determined without a hearing, unless the court considers that a hearing is required (s. 69(5)).  Accordingly, even where permission to appeal is granted, that does not necessarily mean that the Commercial Court will grant the appeal after a substantive hearing, with the benefit of adversarial oral argument and consideration of further written materials.  For example, the Commercial Court could grant permission to appeal on the basis of the “obviously wrong” gateway, but nevertheless find that there was no error of law after a substantive hearing.  In practice, this means that a balanced consideration of the particular circumstances will be necessary at each of the permission to appeal and appeal stages.

[1] The Arbitration Act 2025 has not affected the framework for appeals under section 69 of the 1996 Act.

[2] See Aston Martin MENA Limited v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited [2025] EWHC 2531 (Comm); UnipolSai Assicurazioni SPA v Covéa Insurance PLC [2024] EWHC 253 (Comm) and UnipolSai Assicurazioni SpA v Covéa Insurance Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 1110.