Velimir Zivkovic moderated this live session with Miljana Bigovic, as the group took stock of 2025’s most consequential developments in arbitration and pressure-tested what they might mean in practice for 2026; Zivkovic framed the discussion as deliberately non-exhaustive, focusing on the developments most likely to shift drafting, procedure, and enforcement risk.

The year’s headline developments

1) England’s Arbitration Act amendments: evolutionary, but operationally significant

Zivkovic emphasised that the 2025 changes (in force from August 2025) are best read as incremental improvements rather than a wholesale redesign of the regime, yet still material given the volume of arbitrations seated in England and Wales.

The new default for the law of the arbitration agreement
A practical drafting consequence dominated the discussion: unless parties expressly choose the law governing the arbitration agreement, the law of the seat applies by default (e.g., a London seat points to English law). Zivkovic noted that this reverses the prior approach in Enka v Chubb and will likely increase the number of arbitration agreements treated as governed by English law.
So what? Parties relying on the matrix contract’s governing law alone may be caught out; the safer move is to specify the arbitration agreement’s governing law explicitly where that distinction matters.

Disclosure, immunity, and efficiency levers
Zivkovic highlighted codified and ongoing disclosure obligations for arbitrators, alongside strengthened immunity in specific contexts (including resignation), greater court support for enforcing emergency arbitrator orders, and clearer endorsement of summary disposal powers where claims have no real prospect of success.
A further jurisdiction-challenge streamlining measure was flagged as awaiting implementation in 2026.

2) China’s arbitration law reforms: clarity and pilots, with limits

Zivkovic positioned China’s reforms as a major comparative-law moment, given the age of the prior framework (dating back to the mid-1990s). The new law was described as adopted in 2025 and set to take effect on 1 March 2026, making it a key “2025-into-2026” bridge issue.

Core upgrades: implied consent, separability, shorter set-aside window
Among the most practice-friendly clarifications:

• Arbitration agreements may be recognised through implied consent if proceedings are commenced and the respondent does not object.
• a more robust, unequivocal treatment of separability
• The set-aside deadlinewas shortened from six months to three months (still longer than the 28-day timeline familiar in England).

Seat of arbitration: from institutional location to a real seat analysis
Zivkovic stressed that the reforms address uncertainty about the “seat” concept (historically tied to the administering institution’s location). The new approach allows party choice of seat, a rules-based default, and ultimately tribunal determination where necessary, bringing outcomes closer to international practice.
Nan reinforced the point: formal recognition of the seat improves predictability around procedural law, award nationality, and supervisory court competence.

Ad hoc arbitration: no blanket permission, but a meaningful pilot
Expectations of full liberalisation were tempered. Zivkovic’s “big news” was that China still does not permit ad hoc arbitration across the board, but does allow it in defined foreign-related contexts (including certain maritime disputes and foreign-related disputes seated in designated free trade zones/areas).
Nan added that further implementing rules will matter: the statutory change is described as principled, with practical detail still to come.

3) Sports arbitration and EU public policy: the RFC Seraing v FIFA signal

Zivkovic flagged the Court of Justice of the EU decision (reference C-600/23) as potentially far-reaching. In short, where disputes engage EU fundamental rights, sports arbitration should not operate as a shield from EU-court scrutiny even if an award has been reviewed by a non-EU court (often Swiss courts, given where many sports bodies are headquartered).

The key tension is operational: the CJEU is not requiring a full re-hearing, but it is insisting on mechanisms for effective review and remedies (including damages and interim measures where appropriate).
Zivkovic noted emerging uncertainty around how this interacts with New York Convention obligations and what “effective” review means in practice; he flagged 2026 as the period to watch for consequences.

Practitioner perspectives: what actually dominated 2025?

Sanctions disputes: the baseline fact pattern, not a side issue

Milena described sanctions as the defining feature of her 2025 docket, touching arbitrability, counsel selection, tribunal constitution, expert choices, and enforcement strategy.
Knu echoed the institutional view from the SCC/“SEC” perspective: sanctions-related performance defences are driving a steady flow of cases, with knock-on effects that look set to continue.

AI, guidelines, and client confidence

Milena framed 2025 as a year of practical “clarification” on AI use: firms adopting tools more routinely, and guidance emerging to help tribunals and counsel manage confidentiality and process integrity.
The subtext: arbitration’s flexibility remains a selling point, but clients increasingly want to know where the line is, especially around drafting and decision-support tools.

Third-party funding: disclosure is centre stage

Milena identified third-party funding disclosure as a continuing flashpoint, particularly as rules and transparency expectations evolve across jurisdictions and institutions.

The “real win” is enforcement

Anina noted a growing emphasis in conferences and scholarship on enforcement and post-award strategy, reflecting the hard reality that success can hinge as much on courtroom execution as hearing-room performance.

Watchlist for 2026

• Drafting discipline: expect more deliberate choices on the arbitration agreement’s governing law (especially for London-seated clauses).
• China implementation: how courts and institutions operationalise seat, interim measures, and the ad hoc “pilot” will decide whether reforms change outcomes or simply tidy doctrine.
• EU scrutiny in sports disputes: the practical contours of “effective review” will be tested, with potential spillover into other areas where arbitration is structurally “imposed”.
• Sanctions, challenges, and reputational signals: arbitrator challenges linked to geopolitics, including social media activity, are becoming harder-edged and more frequent.