W Ltd v M SDN BHD

W Ltd v M SDN BHD

The court held that a 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 aware of his firm's relationship with the affiliate, made disclosures when aware of potential conflicts, and the facts did not justify setting aside the award under section 68. The 2014 IBA Guidelines did not alter this conclusion.

Parties
Claimant: W Limited; Defendant: M SDN BHD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Conflict of Interest, Impartiality of Arbitrator, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest
Arbitration Commercial Law Apparent Bias Conflict of Interest Impartiality of Arbitrator 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Limited

Claimant

M SDN BHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to apparent bias/conflict of interest involving the arbitrator's law firm and an affiliate of a party

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a 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 aware of his firm's relationship with the affiliate, made disclosures when aware of potential conflicts, and the facts did not justify setting aside the award under section 68. The 2014 IBA Guidelines did not alter this conclusion.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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