English court rules it has no power to stay LCIA arbitration during challenge

The Commercial Court has confirmed in the case of A v B [2026] EWHC 327 (Comm) that it does not have the power to stay arbitral proceedings pending a challenge under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The decision reinforces the firmly pro-arbitration stance of the English courts.

Background

The dispute arose out of two parallel LCIA arbitrations between Party A (the claimant) and Party B (the first defendant) concerning multiple high-value contracts for the supply of military equipment to Ukraine. Party B alleged that it had paid deposits for goods that were not delivered and sought repayment of those deposits, together with penalties and interest. Party A maintained that all goods had been delivered and claimed breach of contract, seeking payment of the outstanding contract price.

Both contracts provided for LCIA arbitration under the 2020 Rules by a sole arbitrator, on an expedited, documents-only basis.

In December 2025, the arbitrator refused (i) consolidation of the proceedings, and (ii) permission for oral examination of witnesses and experts. Party A then applied under section 24 (which empowers the court to remove an arbitrator) and section 68 (which permits a party to apply to the court challenging an award on the ground of serious irregularity) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) to remove the sole arbitrator on grounds of alleged unfairness and partiality and set aside or declare ineffective the procedural decision refusing an oral hearing. Separately, Party A applied, under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.1(2)(g), for a stay of the arbitral proceedings pending determination of its section 24 and section 68 applications. Party A argued that it would be unjust for the arbitrations to continue while the court considered whether the arbitrator should be replaced.

Decision

Mr Justice Butcher rejected Party A’s application. He held that CPR 3.1(2)(g), applies only to litigation proceedings, not arbitrations. The application was properly characterised as seeking an injunction to restrain the arbitrations pending determination of the section 24 and section 68 applications.

The court then considered whether the Act confers jurisdiction to grant such an injunction addressing sections 24 and 68 separately.

Discussing section 24, the court expressed serious doubt that the Act confers jurisdiction to stay arbitral proceedings pending a removal application but declined to determine the point conclusively.

Even if it had jurisdiction, the court held it would arise only in exceptional circumstances – where continuation of the arbitration would be vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable – the mere existence of a section 24 application was insufficient.

Party A argued that continuation would waste time and costs and would enable witnesses to prepare for cross-examination in advance. The court rejected those submissions, as falling short of the exceptional circumstances threshold, noting that granting the injunction would itself prejudice Party B through delay.

On section 68, the court was definitive: established authority, including Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm), makes clear that the court has no jurisdiction to intervene in the procedural conduct of an arbitration before an award is made.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that the procedural orders amounted to “awards”, holding that they were purely procedural and did not determine the parties’ substantive.

Comment

The decision clearly affirms that the English courts will not readily interfere with arbitral proceedings, even where serious procedural challenges are pursued. While the court stopped short of a definitive ruling on jurisdiction under section 24, it made clear that only truly exceptional circumstances will justify mid-arbitration intervention.

The judgment also underscores the importance of procedural choices at the contracting stage. Where parties agree to expedited, documents-only procedures, the courts will be slow to intervene in the arbitral process. Challenges to arbitral conduct will ordinarily need to run in parallel with the arbitration, rather than deployed as a mechanism to halt it.

The case sends a strong signal of the English courts’ continued commitment to arbitral autonomy, procedural finality, and the efficient resolution of disputes.

Orlagh Brennan, Trainee Solicitor, assisted in the preparation of this briefing.