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
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Halliburton v Chubb: UK Supreme Court Provides Guidance on an Arbitrator’s Duties of Impartiality, Disclosure, and Confidentiality
This month’s International Arbitration Update considers the landmark UK Supreme Court decision of
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48.
The decision is important because it provides guidance on the disclosures that parties should expect from an arbitrator when circumstances exist which might give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality. In providing this guidance, the Supreme Court discussed the interaction between an arbitrator’s duties of impartiality, disclosure, and confidentiality, which are not easily reconciled.
In
Secretariat Consulting PTE Ltd v A Company, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the question of an expert s duty to avoid a conflict of interest.(1) The Court of Appeal s decision, while not deciding the point finally, means that it is unlikely that a court will now recognise such a duty as a matter of law. The issue is a matter of contract. On the terms of the expert firm s engagement in this case, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court s decision to grant an injunction restraining the firm from acting for a third party in a connected arbitration. The judgment contains a useful analysis of when conflicts can arise in related cases and the circumstances in which a large organisation offering expert or litigation support services may find itself conflicted.
Stevens & Bolton
You have recruited a new sales person from your competitor. The new employee arrives on their first day and – smilingly – presents you with some rather useful information from their former employment.
Stevens & Bolton
Findings made against the claimant s witnesses in the recent High Court decision of PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov and others [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm) underline the importance of taking.
Goodman Derrick LLP
Civil fraud cases traditionally require the sifting through of thousands of documents to get to a result. Applications for freezing orders are supported by investigations.
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
In our July 2020 article , we looked at the case of Hart and Hart v Large, which concerned a survey undertaken by Mr Large for the Harts.