The culture of London arbitration: going viral or an English virus?

Panel: Andrew Stevens (4 Pump Court), Flore Poloni (Signature Litigation), Adrian Chadwick (Hadef & Partners), Baldev Bhinder (Blackstone & Gold)
Hosted by: 4 Pump Court

At LIDW2025, an international panel tackled a provocative question: is London arbitration too process-driven - or has it become the blueprint for best practice worldwide? Opinions varied by region - but the discussion revealed just how adaptable arbitration procedure can be when used well.

Andrew Stevens (4 Pump Court) defended the London model. Despite a strong focus on procedural rules, party autonomy means there is still considerable flexibility. With options including ad hoc or institutional rules, and a highly specialised Bar, London remains a jurisdiction that can accommodate different legal traditions - provided participants are willing to adapt.

Dubai is catching up fast. With multiple financial zones and increasingly pro-arbitration courts, enforcement of awards is becoming more streamlined. Top tip? Talk to local lawyers and get creative with freezing orders to prevent asset dissipation pending enforcement of the award.

Paris takes a judicially proactive approach to arbitration. Good faith, legal certainty, and international enforcement are key themes - but pleadings still need to be in French, which may be a barrier for some parties. 

Singapore is pushing the boundaries of innovation in arbitration. With expedited procedures, emergency arbitrators, and a user-focused rules' framework, SIAC is among those at the forefront. The proposed introduction of ex parte procedures for urgent relief marks another bold move - though it's still in the early stages and raises important questions around transparency and enforceability. While Singaporean courts remain firmly pro-arbitration, concerns around rising costs and procedural gamesmanship (including so-called “guerrilla tactics”) are well known and continue to pose challenges, particularly in complex, high-stakes disputes.

As Andrew Stevens pointed out, it is key to choose your counsel and arbitrator carefully - not just default to familiar names. Steering away from the usual club of arbitrators, and instead selecting the right person for the dispute, can make all the difference. Every seat brings its own flavour, but the global arbitration landscape is undeniably shaped by London’s legacy. 

I attended three other compelling talks at LIDW2025 - catch up here if you missed them: 

• Use your discretion: good faith constraints on discretionary contractual powers.
• Enforcing arbitration awards - cradle to grave strategies, from interim relief in support of the arbitration through to final asset recovery.
• AI in document review: best practices and lessons learned.

Burges Salmon also co-hosted two events for LIDW2025: Complex Disputes in the Public Eye I: Balancing Risks and Demands across Civil, Criminal and Regulatory Spheres; and Part II: Leveraging Technology and Artificial Intelligence to Get Ahead of the Game. Check out Tom Whittaker’s LinkedIn post and share your thoughts with us if you attended.

Despite a strong focus on procedure, party autonomy keeps London arbitration remarkably flexible — if participants are willing to adapt.