Halliburton v Chubb: UK Supreme Court Clarifies Position on Arbitrators Duties of Impartiality and Disclosure in London-seated Arbitrations mediate.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mediate.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
4 December 2020
Judicial review – Costs of application – Costs against court
The appellant was a life prisoner. In 2014, the respondent Parole Board (the Board) considered whether it would be appropriate to direct the appellant’s release. If it did not direct his release, it was required to consider whether to recommend his transfer to open conditions. On 10 March 2014, the Board issued its decision. It did not direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. The appellant brought proceedings for judicial review of the decision. In the claim form, both aspects of the decision were challenged. The Board did not take part in the proceedings. In its acknowledgment of service, it ticked the box stating that ‘the defendant … is a court or tribunal and does not intend to make a submission’. At the hearing, the appellant confined his challenge to the decision not to recommend a transfer to open conditions. The challenge was successful, and that aspect of the de
Dec.10.2020
Shortly after its important decision on the governing law of arbitration agreements in
Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (as covered in our recent alert here), the U.K. Supreme Court has handed down another judgment long awaited by arbitration participants and practitioners – namely,
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, which is set to become the leading authority on arbitrators’ duties of impartiality and disclosure.
The case concerned the situation in which there are multiple appointments of the same arbitrator in arbitrations involving the same subject matter and only one common party. The importance of the issues it raised was such that five arbitral institutions and associations were given permission to intervene (the LCIA, the ICC, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Grain and Feed Trade Association, and the London Maritime Arbitrators Association).