H v L & Ors [2017] EWHC 137 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

H v L & Ors [2017] EWHC 137 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

None of the grounds advanced, whether individually or cumulatively, established circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to M's impartiality. The acceptance of appointments in related arbitrations, failure to disclose, and M's responses did not meet the legal threshold for apparent bias under s.24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application for removal was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 137 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: H; First Defendant: L; Second Defendant: M; Third Defendant: N; Fourth Defendant: P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a) for Removal of Arbitrator / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Impartiality of Arbitrators, Disclosure Obligations, Removal of Arbitrator, Arbitration Act 1996 S.24, Party Autonomy in Arbitration
Arbitration Insurance Law Civil Procedure Apparent Bias Impartiality of Arbitrators Disclosure Obligations Removal of Arbitrator Arbitration Act 1996 S.24 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Claimant

L

First Defendant

M

Second Defendant

N

Third Defendant

P

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a) for Removal of Arbitrator / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the arbitrator (M) gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of appointments in related arbitrations, failure to disclose, and response to challenge constituted apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds advanced, whether individually or cumulatively, established circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to M's impartiality. The acceptance of appointments in related arbitrations, failure to disclose, and M's responses did not meet the legal threshold for apparent bias under s.24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application for removal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for removal of arbitrator M under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • No order for replacement of arbitrator under CPR Rule 3.1(7).