Reed Smith’s International Arbitration Report 2025 presents a comprehensive, data‑driven analysis of how courts in leading arbitral seats determine applications to set aside awards. Produced in association with LexisNexis, the study draws from hundreds of reported decisions across England and Wales, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, and the Middle East (onshore UAE and the DIFC, plus Bahrain, in collaboration with the Bahrain Ministry of Justice) spanning a minimum six‑year review period. The report maps success rates and grounds, timelines from award to final determination, and costs consequences. The result is a practical reference for in‑house counsel and arbitration users to calibrate arbitration strategy, from seat selection through enforcement.
Courts set a high bar – and outcomes vary by ground as much as by seat. Reported success rates for set‑aside applications are, perhaps predictably, low across the survey. However, there are notable differences by jurisdiction and ground, including some surprises. For example, the Middle East jurisdictions surveyed had the lowest success rates despite significant volume (together with New York), while England and Wales reported the highest success rate overall. In fact, setting-aside applications in France, with a similar number of reported cases as England and Wales, reported half the success rate overall. In the report, we explore the possible reasons for these statistics, as well as provide a more comprehensive analysis of the volume and success of setting-aside applications in each jurisdiction.
Different grounds yield different results in different jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions offer parties the same grounds for challenging an award. However, most grounds can be mapped across jurisdictions. The data suggests that there are material differences in the popularity of the various available grounds, and the relative success rates of those grounds, across different jurisdictions. For example, public policy is very infrequently argued in England & Wales (comprising less than 3% of setting-aside applications in the review period), while it was the most popular ground for applying to set aside awards in France. We examine these differences and posit possible reasons for them in more detail in the report.
Timelines are longer than intuition suggests. Despite the historical advantage that arbitration is said to have in terms of time and costs over litigation, the survey suggests that in all jurisdictions a significant amount of time is required from award to final judicial determination of a challenge. Setting-aside applications took, on average, more than a year in all the jurisdictions surveyed, and longer timelines were required where appeals were contemplated. The report examines the time required in each jurisdiction to bring an application to conclusion, and breaks this down into first-instance and appeal decisions.
Costs regimes shape trends and incentives. An interesting dimension that arises from a review of the data is the possible link between costs recovery, and the volume and success of challenges. Hong Kong saw significantly fewer – by more than three times – setting-aside cases than Singapore despite the maturity, sophistication, and relative geography of both seats. We posit that a possible reason could be the costs regime in Hong Kong, which awards indemnity costs against unsuccessful challenges. In contrast, Singapore generally does not award indemnity costs in set‑aside proceedings, and although absolute costs have trended higher – particularly in the SICC – recoveries tend to be lower relative to actual spend.
“By presenting outcomes, timelines, costs, and emerging trends in one accessible resource, we aim to equip in‑house counsel and practitioners with practical intelligence that strengthens decision‑making from seat selection through to enforcement strategy.”
Timothy Cooke
How to use this report
Benchmark challenge viability by jurisdiction and ground. The study aggregates where jurisdiction, natural justice, public policy, and law‑appeal routes have historically gained traction – and where they have not.
Budget for duration and cost exposure. Seat‑by‑seat timelines, appellate pathways, and cost‑shifting practices support realistic cash-flow forecasting and security strategies pending enforcement.
Inform seat selection and clause design. Align institutional rules, curial oversight, and any available law‑appeal options with risk tolerance. Account for jurisdiction‑specific review standards on public policy, jurisdiction/admissibility, and due process.
Methodology
Scope: Reported court decisions on applications to set aside or remit awards (and appeal decisions) across England and Wales, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE (onshore and DIFC), Bahrain (in collaboration with the Bahrain Ministry of Justice), and New York federal courts (non‑domestic awards) within defined review periods.
Data caveats: The data were collected from published decisions, which means that the figures reported are likely to skew towards a higher success rate (since most, if not all, unreported cases would tend towards rejecting a setting-aside application). Where courts publish caseload statistics, these often indicate materially lower true success rates than reported‑case samples. All percentages are directional and should be read alongside jurisdiction‑specific limitations described in the report.
