The Arbitration Bill’s changes clarify important aspects of English arbitral law, reinforcing London’s position as a leader in international arbitration. On 21 November 2023, the UK.
Concerns about bias and prejudice from multiple repeat appointments have plagued party-appointed arbitrators for years. This is true of international arbitration, commercial arbitration.
The United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court has handed down its much-anticipated judgment in Halliburton Company v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48 in respect of Haliburton's.
Introduction
When parties agree in a contract that any disputes arising from that contract will be referred to arbitration, they hope that any tribunal appointed will be free of bias and approach the matter fairly. One of the long-running debates, particularly in specialist fields (eg, the London Maritime Arbitrator s Association (LMAA – for maritime disputes) and The Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA – for commodity disputes)), where there has traditionally been a limited pool of arbitrators, is to what extent arbitrators must disclose previous relationships with the parties to an arbitration or their lawyers.
In a recent Supreme Court judgment, the court examined the requirement that an arbitrator must disclose related or linked appointments.(1) This decision is likely to fundamentally change the way in which shipowners, charterers and traders approach the appointment of arbitrators in the future.