• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Apparent bias in arbitration – Supreme Court decision

Published on November 27, 2020 by Christopher Richards

Apparent bias in arbitration – Supreme Court decision

The UK Supreme Court this morning handed down a much anticipated decision concerning the appearance of bias in international arbitration. There were two core questions for the court.

  1. Whether an arbitrator’s acceptance of multiple appointments in arbitrations involving a common party and the same or related subject matter gives rise to an appearance of bias.
  2. Whether and to what extent an arbitrator can accept such appointments without disclosing them.

The dispute arose from a series of three overlapping insurance arbitrations which dealt with the fallout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in 2010.

In the first arbitration, between Halliburton and its insurer, Chubb, the parties were unable to agree the Chairman of the tribunal, and so applied to the court to make the appointment. The court appointed an arbitrator who had initially been proposed by Chubb (and who had been involved in multiple previous and ongoing arbitrations involving Chubb), but opposed by Halliburton.

This arbitrator subsequently accepted appointments in two related arbitrations – one between Chubb and another insured, and another between that insured and another insurer. The arbitrator did not disclose these further appointments to Halliburton.

When Halliburton learned of this, it applied to the court to remove the arbitrator on the basis that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his involvement in the other arbitrations gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.

The High Court dismissed Halliburton’s application to remove the arbitrator. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and now the Supreme Court has also, unanimously, dismissed Halliburton’s appeal.

On the first question, the Supreme Court held that there may be circumstances where accepting multiple appointments in overlapping references could, in itself, give rise to an appearance of bias. But regard must be had to the particular circumstances of international arbitration – in some fields of arbitration, an arbitrator’s involvement in multiple references may give rise to no concern.

On the second question, the court held that an arbitrator is under a legal duty to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality, and this is an implied term in the arbitrator’s contract. An arbitrator’s failure to disclose such circumstances is itself a relevant consideration when the court asks itself if the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is an appearance of bias.

On the facts of this case, the arbitrator was under a legal duty to disclose the subsequent appointments, and failed to do so. However, this was an oversight at a time when it was not clear if there was a legal duty of disclosure under English law. By the time of the hearing of the application to remove the arbitrator, the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias – there was no question of the arbitrator having received a financial benefit, and Chubb was unlikely to benefit from the arbitrator’s involvement in the subsequent references.

We will publish fuller analysis of the decision and its implications for arbitrators and parties in due course.

Case: Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48

About the author(s)

Photo of Christopher Richards
Christopher Richards
View Christopher's profile | See recent posts

Chris supports our dispute resolution lawyers in providing excellent client service by keeping them abreast of current awareness and legal developments in their practice areas. He also writes client insights and articles on topics of importance in the areas of litigation and arbitration.

  • Christopher Richards
    https://loupedin.blog/author/christopherrichards/
    Between Rock and a hard place – diverging views on "no oral modification" clauses

Christopher Richards

Chris supports our dispute resolution lawyers in providing excellent client service by keeping them abreast of current awareness and legal developments in their practice areas. He also writes client insights and articles on topics of importance in the areas of litigation and arbitration.

Filed Under: Analysis, Opinion Tagged With: analysis, arbitration, Bias, dispute, Supreme Court, UK

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Environmental law in 2023 – Key areas to follow
  • AI and copyright in 2022
  • A legal update on the UK’s ban on single-use plastics

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (51) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) Blockchain (4) brand protection (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (12) COP26 (11) COP27 (5) Copyright (7) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) GowlingAtTheGames (5) Intellectual Property (56) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (39) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (10) Pensions dashboards (6) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (30) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (16) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (42) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (12) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT