English High Court Evaluates Fraud/public Policy Challenge (S.68(2)(g) Arbitration Act)

• Published date: 10 October 2025
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
• Law Firm: Mayer Brown
• Author: Mr Raid Abu-Manneh, Rachael O'Grady, Rhys Morgan, Cameron McPheely and Lisa Dubot

Yesterday, the English High Court dismissed an application to amend an arbitration claim to bring a section 68 application. In doing so, it provided further guidance on the fraud and public policy ground at section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (as amended) (the "Act"), as well as enforcement pursuant to section 66.

In this Legal Update, we highlight the key aspects of the decision by Mr Justice Knowles, which partly clarifies an area of continuing uncertainty.

SECTION S.68(2)(G) OF THE ACT

The Claimants sought to set aside a London-seated LCIA award on the basis that the letter of engagement in dispute was "a contract for fraud" as it was "a contract for provision of services to "obtain information from targets by deception", and was performed in that way".

The Claimants submitted that an Award in support of such a contract could be challenged as a matter of serious irregularity under s68(2)(g) - in particular, due to: "the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy."

This allegation had not been raised in the arbitration and so the tribunal had not dealt with the issue.

Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE rejected the Claimants' submission on the basis that their case was made on the merits of a contractual claim - and therefore, on a matter which "the parties had agreed should be for the Tribunal to decide". Citing his own judgment in...