Released on Apr 27, 2021
This Special Issue is devoted to the Chubb v. Halliburton decision. It is a must read. It precedes a virtual conference devoted to the same topic that will be held on 2 June 2021 with representatives from the major arbitral institutions.
Released on Mar 10, 2021
It is not often that a seminal decision centred around fundamental questions in the practise of arbitration is delivered by the courts. Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48 , rendered by the English Supreme Court on 27 November 2020, is arguably the most significant arbitration decision of the decade. It is of critical importance not only for English arbitration practitioners but also for the wider global arbitration community.
The UK Supreme Court s much-anticipated judgment in
Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 48 (on appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 817) opens with the recognition of an axiom which goes to the heart of justice: it is axiomatic that a judge or an arbitrator must be impartial; he or she must not be biased in favour of or against any party in a litigation or reference.
After restating the law on the extent to which an arbitrator can, without disclosure and without giving rise to an appearance of bias, accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party, the judgment concludes that the arbitrator in question was in breach of a legal duty of disclosure but that, on the facts, he did not need to be removed. With that conclusion, many in the international arbitration community may well wonder whether the axiomatic duty has been g