By general consensus, the new draft Arbitration Bill successfully fulfils the requirements of the 1989 Mustill report on a new arbitration law for England and Wales, in lieu of the rejected UNCITRAL model law.

produced under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Saville, it is laid out in a logical order and the language is user friendly.

The Bill is divided into mandatory provisions and the much more important non-mandatory provisions, where the parties are encouraged to make their own rules and provisions.

In so far as they do not, the Bill contains, as a fall-back, a model set of rules for the conduct of the arbitration which the parties can either include, exclude, or re-write, as they wish.

An arbitration agreement has still to be in writing but this can be satisfied in the case of oral contracts by referring to a written form of agreement, ie a recognised set of written arbitration rules.

Following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Harbour Assurance v Kansa in 1993, arbitration agreements are now by statute to be separable from the substantive agreement.The fall-back code for setting up a tribunal is a sole arbitrator.

If the parties stipulate two, then a third, to be chairman, is automatically brought in.

Duties of chairman and umpire are fully detailed.

For the first time, there is provision for the removal of an arbitrator either by the parties acting together, or by an arbitral institution or, as a last resort, by the court upon detailed grounds.An important new provision is immunity for arbitrators for anything done or omitted in the discharge of their functions, unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith, and also for arbitral or other institutions which have the task of appointing arbitrators.The court's role is to be supportive of the tribunal, not interventionist, and all available arbitral processes must first be exhausted.

Both courts and arbitrators are to be guided by the stated principle that the object of arbitration is to obtain a fair determination of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense.A new provision is the specific power given to a tribunal to rule on its own substantive jurisdiction.

The tribunal may either make a preliminary ruling, which can be referred to the court, or it may incorporate its ruling in the final award, in which case that award may also be referred to the court on that ground alone.Instead of the common law rules of natural justice, tribunals are now told to act fairly and impartially between the parties, giving them a reasonable opportunity to put their cases, and avoiding unnecessary delay or expense.

Parties are to be given total freedom to agree on all matters of procedure and whether or not to apply strict rules of evidence.

The parties may even authorise the arbitrators to decide the dispute, not on law, but on equitable grounds.

The tribunal can take the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law and so conduct the proceedings inquisitorially.

Consolidation may be ordered only with the agreement of all the parties, and unless otherwise agreed, either may be represented by a lawyer or other person.

In so far as parties do not agree such matters, the tribunal has very full powers.

These include ordering security for costs, appointing experts, making property preservation orders, and even Anton Piller orders.

And the parties are required to do everything necessary in support of the orders of the tribunal in the conduct of the proceedings, failing which the court may enforce such orders.Good news is the power given to a tribunal to award either simple or compound interest, and to award interest not just up to the date of the award, but right through to the date of payment.

However, not such good news for arbitrators is the requirement that they must settle the costs of the parties themselves, instead of referring them to taxation as they do at present.All awards are to be reasoned and must state the seat of the arbitration -- a new concept.

The award is then treated as having been made at that seat, regardless of where it was signed or dispatched to the parties.

this solves the Hiscox v Outhwaite problem, where the arbitrator signed the award outside England.Apart from jurisdiction, there are two other grounds on which an award may be taken to the court.

One is on the grounds of serious irregularity (formerly misconduct).

This is now fully defined in the Bill as matters which in the opinion of the court will cause substantial injustice to the applicant unless the court acts.

The other ground is an updated version of s.1 of the 1979 Act, that is, on a question of law, with the NEMA guidelines incorporated.Finally, all these new provisions are to apply only where the arbitration agreement is made after the commencement of the Act.

DRAFT ARBITRATION BILL IN SUMMARY-- User friendly language and logical layout.-- Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.-- Arbitrators can now be removed.-- Immunity for arbitrators in discharge of their functions.-- Immunity for arbitral institutions in appointing arbitrators.-- Parties or arbitrators to decide on all matters of procedure and evidence.-- Arbitrators can act inquisitorially.-- Parties can even agree that the dispute be settle on non-legal grounds, ie 'ex aequo et bono'.-- 'Misconduct' redefined.-- Extensive new powers for arbitrators including Anton Piller orders, property orders and security for costs.-- Interest can be compound as well as simple and run beyond date of award up to date of payment.-- Emphasis is on power to the parties and the arbitrators with the courts adopting a subsidiary supporting role.