K1 (Appellant) v B (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0063

Parties

Appellant(s)

K1

Respondent(s)

B

Issue

What amounts to a ‘decision’ of the trial judge for the purposes of section 68(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “AA 1996”)?

Facts

In April 2024, a London-seated arbitration tribunal held in its arbitral award (the “Award”) that the appellant, K1, owed the respondent, B, US$3.2 million under a letter of engagement entered into in 2018. The letter of engagement concerned ‘business intelligence services’ provided by the respondent. In the Award, the tribunal found that the appellant had used information resulting from those services in aid of settling ongoing commercial arbitrations and were required, in accordance with the letter of engagement, to pay the respondent a fixed percentage of such amounts received. In May 2024, the appellant sought to challenge the Award in the High Court under section 67 of the AA 1996. Before that challenge had been determined, it applied to amend its claim to add a further challenge to the Award under section 68(2)(g) of the AA 1996. Section 68 concerns challenges to an arbitral award on the ground of a “serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award”. The specific serious irregularity relied upon by the appellant in section 68 was “the award … being contrary to public policy”. The appellant argued that the underlying letter of engagement was a “contract for fraud” as it involved obtaining information from targets, being foreign state officials or authorities, by deception. The High Court held that the appellant’s proposed amendment did not indicate a complaint which correctly fell within the meaning of section 68(2)(g). The trial judge refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on this point. Importantly, section 68(4) of the AA 1996 provides that in order to appeal “from a decision” under section 68 of the original court, that court has to give its permission. The appellant sought to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as section 68(4) of the AA 1996 applied. It considered that the trial judge’s conclusion on whether the complaint fell within section 68(2)(g) was a “decision” caught by section 68(4). The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Date of issue

20 May 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top