London has long been recognised as a leading centre for dispute resolution, attracting parties from around the world to resolve their commercial conflicts, not just by way of litigation in the English courts, but also through other highly effective dispute resolution mechanisms that the jurisdiction has to offer, such as arbitration and mediation.
In June this year, the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Sue Carr, noted the strength of the jurisdiction’s “triumvirate” in her keynote speech at London International Disputes Week’s core conference, querying whether more can be done to bring together the three main types of dispute resolution. In this article, we look at what the UK is doing to solidify its position as the premier global hub for dispute resolution in each of these three areas.
The judiciary
The 2024 edition of the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report confirmed that the London Commercial Court (LCC) remains the leading international centre for the resolution of complex commercial litigation. It noted that “The [LCC] received 1,352 referrals for its services and delivered 212 written judgments between October 2022 and September 2023, surpassing the New York Commercial Division and the Singapore International Commercial Court.”[1]
Furthermore, the courts of England and Wales continue to attract a particularly diverse and international body of litigants. For example, according to Portland’s latest Commercial Courts report, 64% of litigants who appeared before the LCC between April 2023 and March 2024, came from jurisdictions outside of the UK, representing 84 different nationalities.[2]
As well as the excellent reputation of English judges generally, the English courts, especially the High Courts, are highly experienced in sophisticated and complex international litigation making it an attractive forum. There are specialist courts (such as the Technology and Construction Court, Admiralty Court and the Financial List). Nominated judges, such as those in the Financial List, allow parties access to specialist judges, who are experts in assessing complex financial disputes efficiently. These provisions ensure a streamlined process for high-value financial cases.[3]
The common law system provides for the development of judicial precedent which in turn allows the English courts to be reactive, flexible, and pioneering. The courts continue to demonstrate their ability to adapt to new challenges and difficult legal issues as seen, for example, in the recent case of D’Aloia v Persons Unknown & Others[4] where the High Court allowed service by means of distributed ledger technology for the first time and held that USD Tether constitutes property for the purposes of English law. The legislature supported these judicial developments by way of introduction of the Property (Digital Assets Etc) Bill to Parliament which confirms the existence of a distinct third category of personal property in statute. It is a particular new and emerging area of law which other countries have struggled to keep up with.
The principles of English common law have been adopted by many other jurisdictions around the world. The UK’s ratification of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019 (otherwise known as Hague 2019) in June this year also aims to make it easier to recognise and enforce English judgments abroad (from 1 July 2025), thereby helping to resolve some of the jurisdictional challenges caused by Brexit, and reinforcing England and Wales as a preferred forum for dispute resolution.
It is therefore no surprise that English law remains a popular choice of governing law for parties in international arbitration. Indeed, the vast majority of arbitrations governed by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) in 2023 were governed by English law[5].
Prominence of ADR
London hosts a variety of world-class institutions, each specialising in different types of dispute resolution. For example: the LCIA focuses on commercial arbitration; the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) specializes in maritime disputes; and the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) offers facilities for various types of arbitration and mediation.
The importance of these institutions and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms has become greater than ever. In England and Wales, parties are now required to consider ADR in litigation, it is not just something to be encouraged. The pre-action protocols, the Civil Procedural Rules, court guides and other court forms, all require parties to consider ADR in every case. Failure to comply may result in adverse costs consequences. In a pivotal case in November 2023, the Court of Appeal in the case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council[6] found that, with effect from 1 October 2024, parties to a dispute can be ordered by the court in England and Wales to engage in non-court based dispute resolution.
The UK Supreme Court has recently shown its support for arbitration agreements on the international stage, in the case of UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC[7]. In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal allowing an anti-suit injunction to halt Russian litigation which was in breach of an arbitration agreement. It is an important decision which provides a powerful demonstration of the English court’s willingness to protect agreements to arbitrate, even in the face of intense international geopolitical pressure.
Comment
It is clear that the UK has a robust and supportive legislative framework, with complementary strengths in a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms. We are yet to see the full consequences of the Churchill decision play out in practice, and the effects of Hague 2019, but both remain interesting areas to watch. In any event, the numerous developments in the courts and on an international basis this year alone, have certainly indicated the jurisdiction’s willingness to deploy innovative solutions and a strong commitment to assisting parties to resolve their disputes through litigation and alternative means.
Miranda Joseph
Catherine Penny