Laker Airways Inc v. FLS Aerospace Ltd [1999] EWHC B3 (Comm) (20 April 1999)

Laker Airways Inc v. FLS Aerospace Ltd [1999] EWHC B3 (Comm) (20 April 1999)

The mere fact that an arbitrator and counsel for a party are members of the same barristers' chambers does not, without more, give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality under s.24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Barristers are self-employed, do not share profits, and professional practice and rules prevent conflicts of interest or improper disclosure. No evidence was provided of actual bias, risk of information leakage, or any other circumstance justifying removal.

Citation
[1999] EWHC B3 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant (in First Application), Respondent (in Second Application): Laker Airways Incorporated; Respondent (in First Application), Applicant (in Second Application): FLS Aerospace Limited; Respondent (arbitrator Challenged): Stanley Jeffrey Burnton; Intervener: General Council of the Bar of England & Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Application (removal of Arbitrator) / High Court, Commercial Court, Decision on Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Impartiality of Arbitrators, Conflict of Interest, Barristers' Chambers, Apparent Bias, Removal of Arbitrator
Arbitration Commercial Law Legal Profession Impartiality of Arbitrators Conflict of Interest Barristers' Chambers Apparent Bias Removal of Arbitrator

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laker Airways Incorporated

Applicant (in First Application), Respondent (in Second Application)

FLS Aerospace Limited

Respondent (in First Application), Applicant (in Second Application)

Stanley Jeffrey Burnton

Respondent (arbitrator Challenged)

General Council of the Bar of England & Wales

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Application (removal of Arbitrator) / High Court, Commercial Court, Decision on Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitrator should be removed under Arbitration Act 1996 s.24(1)(a) on grounds of justifiable doubts as to impartiality because counsel for a party and the arbitrator are members of the same barristers' chambers.

Ratio Decidendi

The mere fact that an arbitrator and counsel for a party are members of the same barristers' chambers does not, without more, give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality under s.24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Barristers are self-employed, do not share profits, and professional practice and rules prevent conflicts of interest or improper disclosure. No evidence was provided of actual bias, risk of information leakage, or any other circumstance justifying removal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to remove Mr Burnton as arbitrator dismissed for want of prosecution and on the merits.
  • Costs awarded against Laker Airways Incorporated.