Jamie Curle and Kate Knox reassess the relative merits of litigation and arbitration in the wake of the Jackson reforms and find that the flexibility provided by the latter will still probably hold sway for cross-border disputes
The last decade has seen a radical upturn in the number of cases being referred to arbitral institutions globally, driven in large part by perceived advantages of the arbitral process, including confidentiality, speed, cost and enforceability of arbitral awards. But it is necessary to consider the extent to which parties may reassess some of the factors traditionally weighing in favour of international arbitration over English civil litigation in light of Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms and the impact they are having on the conduct of litigation proceedings.
