W Ltd v M SDN BHD [2016] EWHC 422 (Comm) (02 March 2016)

W Ltd v M SDN BHD [2016] EWHC 422 (Comm) (02 March 2016)

The fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the arbitrator was biased or lacked independence or impartiality. The arbitrator was not personally involved in the work for the affiliate, was unaware of the connection, and had made disclosures when aware of potential conflicts. The 2014 IBA Guidelines do not override the need for a case-specific judgment under English law. No serious irregularity under section 68 was established.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 422 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: W Limited; Defendant: M SDN BHD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards for Alleged Serious Irregularity (apparent Bias)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Conflict of Interest, Arbitrator Impartiality, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest
Arbitration Commercial Law Apparent Bias Conflict of Interest Arbitrator Impartiality Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Limited

Claimant

M SDN BHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Challenge to Arbitration Award Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Awards for Alleged Serious Irregularity (apparent Bias)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's firm's relationship with an affiliate of a party gives rise to apparent bias under English law
  2. 2 Whether the facts fall within paragraph 1.4 of the Non-Waivable Red List of the 2014 IBA Guidelines and its effect
  3. 3 Whether the awards should be set aside for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the arbitrator was biased or lacked independence or impartiality. The arbitrator was not personally involved in the work for the affiliate, was unaware of the connection, and had made disclosures when aware of potential conflicts. The 2014 IBA Guidelines do not override the need for a case-specific judgment under English law. No serious irregularity under section 68 was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant's challenges to the awards under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are dismissed.
  • The Claimant's application for an extension of time to bring the challenges is refused.