EGF v HVF & Ors.

EGF v HVF & Ors.

There was no justifiable doubt as to the arbitrators' impartiality; the Witness Statement Ruling was a reasonable case management decision and did not create an appearance of bias. The arbitrators had power under Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Rules to order an interim payment as a remedy, but Article 34 did not permit such relief to be granted by way of award. However, no substantial injustice was pleaded or established by the claimant, so the challenge under section 68(2)(b) failed. The challenge under section 67 also failed as it did not go to substantive jurisdiction.

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 Related Commercial Court Claim / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and for Removal of Arbitrators
Outcome
All claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Removal of Arbitrators, Interim Measures, UNCITRAL Rules, Arbitration Act 1996, Jurisdiction and Powers of Arbitrators, Partial/interim Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Apparent Bias Removal of Arbitrators Interim Measures UNCITRAL Rules Arbitration Act 1996 Jurisdiction and Powers of Arbitrators +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 4 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 Related Commercial Court Claim / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and for Removal of Arbitrators

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrators' conduct created justifiable doubt as to their impartiality (apparent bias)
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators had power under the UNCITRAL Rules and Arbitration Act 1996 to make an interim payment order by way of award
  3. 3 Whether the making of an interim payment order as an award (rather than order) exceeded the arbitrators' powers under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Rules

Ratio Decidendi

There was no justifiable doubt as to the arbitrators' impartiality; the Witness Statement Ruling was a reasonable case management decision and did not create an appearance of bias. The arbitrators had power under Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Rules to order an interim payment as a remedy, but Article 34 did not permit such relief to be granted by way of award. However, no substantial injustice was pleaded or established by the claimant, so the challenge under section 68(2)(b) failed. The challenge under section 67 also failed as it did not go to substantive jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The claimant's claims for removal of the arbitrators and to set aside the interim payment award are dismissed.
  • No relief granted to the claimant.