EGF v HVF & Ors [2022] EWHC 2470 (Comm) (16 September 2022)

EGF v HVF & Ors [2022] EWHC 2470 (Comm) (16 September 2022)

The court held that the arbitrators' Witness Statement Ruling did not create any justifiable doubt as to their impartiality; the decision to defer further reasons was reasonable and did not amount to procedural unfairness; and the interim payment order was within the tribunal's powers under the UNCITRAL Rules and s.39 of the Arbitration Act 1996. All claims failed and were dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2470 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: EGF; First Defendant: HVF; Second Defendant: HWG; Third Defendant (arbitrator/chair): TOM; Fourth Defendant (arbitrator): DCK; Fifth Defendant (arbitrator): HRY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (commercial Court) / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrators and Challenge to Interim Award
Outcome
All claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Removal of Arbitrators, Interim Payment Orders, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, UNCITRAL Rules, Arbitration Act 1996 S.24, S.67, S.68
Arbitration Commercial Law Apparent Bias Removal of Arbitrators Interim Payment Orders Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal UNCITRAL Rules Arbitration Act 1996 S.24, S.67, S.68

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EGF

Claimant

HVF

First Defendant

HWG

Second Defendant

TOM

Third Defendant (arbitrator/chair)

DCK

Fourth Defendant (arbitrator)

HRY

Fifth Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (commercial Court) / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrators and Challenge to Interim Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrators' conduct (specifically the Witness Statement Ruling) created justifiable doubt as to their impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators' decision not to provide further reasons for the Witness Statement Ruling until the final award amounted to procedural unfairness under s.24(1)(d)
  3. 3 Whether the interim payment order was within the arbitrators' powers under the UNCITRAL Rules and Arbitration Act 1996 s.39

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrators' Witness Statement Ruling did not create any justifiable doubt as to their impartiality; the decision to defer further reasons was reasonable and did not amount to procedural unfairness; and the interim payment order was within the tribunal's powers under the UNCITRAL Rules and s.39 of the Arbitration Act 1996. All claims failed and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim for removal of arbitrators under s.24(1)(a) dismissed.
  • Claim for removal under s.24(1)(d) dismissed.