H v L & Ors

H v L & Ors

None of the grounds advanced, whether individually or cumulatively, established circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to M’s impartiality. Acceptance of appointments in related arbitrations, failure to disclose those appointments, and M’s response to the challenge did not amount to apparent bias under the objective legal test. There was no breach of disclosure obligations that would justify removal, and the IBA Guidelines did not alter the position under English law.

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
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Application to Remove Arbitrator Under S.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator, Apparent Bias, Disclosure Obligations, Arbitration Procedure
Arbitration Commercial Law Insurance Law Removal of Arbitrator Apparent Bias Disclosure Obligations Arbitration Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Claimant

L

First Defendant

M

Second Defendant

N

Third Defendant

P

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Application to Remove Arbitrator Under S.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the impartiality of the arbitrator (M) under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose subsequent arbitral appointments constitutes grounds for removal for apparent bias
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's response to the challenge demonstrates bias

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds advanced, whether individually or cumulatively, established circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to M’s impartiality. Acceptance of appointments in related arbitrations, failure to disclose those appointments, and M’s response to the challenge did not amount to apparent bias under the objective legal test. There was no breach of disclosure obligations that would justify removal, and the IBA Guidelines did not alter the position under English law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to remove M as arbitrator under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • No order made to revoke or vary the appointment under CPR Rule 3.1(7).