Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd & Ors

Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd & Ors

The Court held that while M ought, as a matter of good practice and law in the circumstances, to have disclosed his appointments in overlapping references, the non-disclosure, taken together with all other relevant factors, would not lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that M was biased. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Halliburton Company; First Respondent: Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd; Second Respondent: [M]; Third Respondent: [N]; Fourth Respondent: [P]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Disclosure by Arbitrators, Impartiality of Arbitrators, Arbitrator Removal, International Arbitration Practice
Arbitration Commercial Law Insurance Law Apparent Bias Disclosure by Arbitrators Impartiality of Arbitrators Arbitrator Removal International Arbitration Practice

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halliburton Company

Appellant

Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd

First Respondent

[M]

Second Respondent

[N]

Third Respondent

[P]

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitrator may accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party without giving rise to an appearance of bias
  2. 2 Whether and to what extent an arbitrator may do so without disclosure
  3. 3 When should an arbitrator make disclosure of circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while M ought, as a matter of good practice and law in the circumstances, to have disclosed his appointments in overlapping references, the non-disclosure, taken together with all other relevant factors, would not lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that M was biased. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.