Which law should govern the ‘arbitrability’ of a dispute in England?

Abstract This article considers, from an English law perspective, the question of which law should govern the arbitrability of a dispute. The focus of the article is on the position preaward as opposed to postaward, which is expressly addressed by the New York Convention. The article analyses this question in light of the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings, the only authoritative treatment of the relevant issues by a common law jurisdiction. In Anupam, the court concluded that a composite approach to the law applicable to the arbitrability of a dispute should apply, requiring a dispute to be arbitrable under both the law of the seat of arbitration and the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. The authors suggest that a composite approach to the issue of arbitrability should not be followed in England. Instead, English law should apply the more orthodox approach of looking to the law of the seat. An approach that looks to the law of the arbitration agreement would be particularly detrimental to English arbitration law given the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb. It underlines the need for reform of the Arbitration Act 1996 to address some of the well-known problems caused by Enka and which could be expanded by the additional focus on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement provided by Anupam.