04.11.2026
The recent case of STN v POR [2026] EWHC 2585 (Comm) (13 October 2026) provides a relatively rare example of a (partially) successful challenge to a sports arbitration award due to a “serious irregularity”. It also considered Rule K10.2 of the FA Rules, which had apparently not been previously considered in any previous judgment. In particular, the court had to determine whether Rule K10.2 prevented a party applying to the arbitral tribunal for an additional award in respect of a matter that the tribunal had failed to address in its original award.
The Arbitration
The dispute concerned a claim by a football agent against a player for unpaid commission arising from the transfer of that player. As with the rules of many sports governing bodies, “Rule K” of the rules of the Football Association referred such disputes to arbitration. The player denied the agent’s claim, and counterclaimed on various grounds, seeking equitable compensation.
The Arbitrator made an award finding for the agent and dismissing the player’s counterclaim.
The High Court Challenge
The Arbitration Act 1996 provides that, in certain circumstances, an arbitration award can be challenged in the courts. One of those circumstances is where there is an alleged “serious irregularity” affecting the arbitration which causes “substantial injustice” to the applicant (see s68 of the Act).
The player alleged that the arbitrator failed to deal with a specific element of his counterclaim, failed to provide the player with an opportunity to address other elements of the counterclaim, and had adopted a line of reasoning in his award which had not been argued by the agent.
One of the arguments that the agent raised in response was that the player could not make a challenge under s68 of the Arbitration Act without first seeking recourse to the tribunal to make an additional award in respect of argument that it had not addressed in the original award. The Judge however found that Rule K10.2 of the FA rules, which provides (our emphasis): “Subject to… s68 Arbitration Act 1996…the parties …. shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or recourse to a court of law, arbitral body or any other body of any nature”, had, by contract, specifically precluded the parties from seeking further recourse within the arbitration. Accordingly, the agent’s defence failed on this point.
The Judge reiterated the high threshold of “irregularity” which a party seeking to challenge an arbitration award must meet by a s68 Challenge but agreed with the player that the arbitrator had failed to deal with a specific element of his counterclaim, which met that high threshold.
Takeaways
The practical takeaways from the case for sports professionals are:
- Be mindful of the dispute resolution provisions within any documents you are bound by (for example, contractual documents with a club which incorporate the governing body’s rules- in this instance the FA rules), specifically:
- Whether disputes are to be governed by arbitration (as opposed to court proceedings). The preferred dispute resolution mechanism of the governing bodies of many sports is arbitration.
- Take advice upon the specific wording within the dispute resolution clause (for example, Rule K10.2 dictated the appropriate mechanism for recourse in this particular case). Strict short timescales are imposed to challenge arbitration awards, and starting the wrong way will likely be fatal to any challenge.
- There is a high threshold for challenges to arbitration awards under s68 of the Arbitration Act.
- The court will consider the overall context in deciding whether to interfere with findings of an arbitral tribunal. In this instance, one of the player’s grounds of challenge succeeded because, although his counterclaim was for a modest sum, so too were the sums at stake overall. In that context, the arbitrator’s failure to deal with aspects of that counterclaim amounted to substantial injustice, a requirement of a s68 challenge.
back to news and insights