Introduction
Imagine discovering a problem with the person deciding your dispute, and then having to carry on anyway.
That is what happened in Party A v Party B & Anor [2026] EWHC 327 (Comm). Party A challenged the arbitrator while two LCIA arbitrations were underway. It then asked the High Court to pause proceedings while it pursued the challenge.
However, challenging an arbitrator does not automatically put an arbitration on hold. The Court therefore had to decide whether it had the power to intervene.
Why Remove an Arbitrator?
An arbitrator is appointed to decide a dispute outside ordinary court processes. They manage the proceedings, consider the evidence and decide on issues between parties.
Under section 24(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, a party can ask the court to remove an arbitrator in certain circumstances, including concerns about impartiality, failure to meet agreed qualifications, or inability to perform their role.
But challenging an arbitrator does not automatically stop the arbitration.
That was the problem facing Party A. While its challenge was being considered, the two arbitrations could continue. So Party A asked the Court to press pause on both arbitrations.
Can the English Court Actually Press Pause?
Imagine an arbitration is heading towards a five-day hearing. One party suddenly challenges the arbitrator. Does everyone pack up and wait for the court to decide?
Not necessarily.
Party A relied on CPR 3.1(2)(g), which allows a judge to stay proceedings (put them on hold).
Party A argued that the Court could pause the arbitrations while its challenge was being decided.
There was a problem, though: CPR 3.1 concerns court proceedings, not arbitration.
The LCIA provides the rules governing the arbitration, while the English courts have limited powers to support the process. The Arbitration Act 2025 expanded some of those powers, but does not give judges power to pause an arbitration whenever an arbitrator is challenged.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Court refused to pause the arbitrations.
Butcher J concluded that CPR 3.1 could not be used to stay arbitral proceedings. Party A's application under section 24 to remove the arbitrator did not change that.
The Court also considered whether Party A was seeking an injunction, meaning a court order requiring someone to do/stop doing something.
There was not a sufficient basis under these grounds either.
The result was unusual: Party A could challenge the arbitrator while the arbitrations continued.
Why Does This Matter?
Stopping an arbitration is not as simple as stopping a court case.
If the arbitrator is removed after important hearings have taken place, the parties could face duplicated work, wasted legal costs and further delays.
But automatically stopping arbitrations whenever an arbitrator is challenged may allow parties to slow proceedings down or put pressure on their opponents.
That leaves parties with an awkward choice: keep going and risk wasting time and money, or try to stop the arbitration and risk delaying the dispute.
A challenge may therefore have to run alongside the arbitration rather than bringing it to a halt.
The Bigger Picture
A party can ask the Court to remove an arbitrator where the legal requirements are met. But the Court cannot put the underlying arbitration on hold due to this.
For parties, the message is simple: challenging the person deciding the dispute does not necessarily stop the dispute itself.