2,051
edits
Changes
no edit summary
In the context of an application to remove an arbitrator under s.24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for apparent bias, the Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, the application failed, even though it found that the arbitrator in question had failed in his duty to disclose subsequent appointments in different arbitration references involving overlapping subject matter and a common party.
In its landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed and clarified the obligation on arbitrators to make disclosures in overlapping multiple appointment situations to avoid doubts as to their impartiality , while at the same time highlighting and distinguishing the unique characteristics of sector-focussed arbitration, such as maritime, sport and commodity references, where the engagement in multiple overlapping arbitrations does not need to be disclosed, because it is not generally perceived as calling into question an arbitrator’s impartiality or giving rise to unfairness.
This case note is largely based on a note prepared by Cecilie Rezutka and partner Jonathan Webb of the London office of the international law firm HFW, who, together with Counsel Nick Vineall QC and Andrew Stevens of 4 Pump Court, represented the London Maritime Arbitrators Association as an Intervening Party in the Supreme Court proceedings.