PACIFIC CHINA HOLDINGS LTD v. GRAND PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD

PACIFIC CHINA HOLDINGS LTD v. GRAND PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD

Applying the Porter v Magill test to the factual context, the communications were non-substantive and limited to candidate selection, both arbitrators engaged similarly and ceased when requested, and the ICC had rejected an identical challenge; on that basis an informed bystander would not perceive a real possibility of bias, so removal was not justified and the application failed.

Citation
PACIFIC CHINA HOLDINGS LTD v. GRAND PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD
Parties
Applicant (respondent in Arbitration): Pacific China Holdings Limited; Respondent (claimant in Arbitration): Grand Pacific Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 July 2007
Case Number
HCCT5/2007
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Originating Motion Application to Remove Arbitrator (hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed; Mr James Carter not removed as arbitrator.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators, Arbitrator Removal, ICC Rules, Porter V Magill Test
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure Administrative Law Apparent Bias Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators Arbitrator Removal ICC Rules Porter V Magill Test

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific China Holdings Limited

Applicant (respondent in Arbitration)

Grand Pacific Holdings Limited

Respondent (claimant in Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Originating Motion Application to Remove Arbitrator (hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unilateral communications between a party-appointed arbitrator and the nominating party must be disclosed in full
  2. 2 Whether those communications give rise to apparent bias such that removal is justified
  3. 3 Whether the fair-minded and informed observer would perceive a real possibility of bias

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Porter v Magill test to the factual context, the communications were non-substantive and limited to candidate selection, both arbitrators engaged similarly and ceased when requested, and the ICC had rejected an identical challenge; on that basis an informed bystander would not perceive a real possibility of bias, so removal was not justified and the application failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Mr James Carter not removed as arbitrator.

Orders

  • Application to remove Mr James Carter dismissed
  • Costs of and incidental to this motion to the respondent (Grand Pacific Holdings Limited)