REUTERS | Yuya Shino
January 29, 2021

The arbitration vaccine: immunity of arbitrators

“A judge, for anything done by him as judge, by the authority which the King hath committed to him, and as sitting in the seat of the King (concerning his justice) shall not be drawn in question before any other judge”.

Preconceived wisdom holds that because judges and arbitrators are in the same business, namely the administration of justice, both should be granted immunity as a guard of independence. This article considers a comparative view on the extent to which arbitrators may be immune from any scrutiny of their actions in the course of their mandate.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Yuya Shino
January 25, 2021

Witness recollection and international arbitration

A recently published report from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), The Accuracy of Fact Witness Memory in International Arbitration, covers the work undertaken by the ICC Task Force on Maximising the Probative Value of Witness Evidence. This blog post reviews the ICC Report’s salient findings and suggestions, and asks whether it advances matters.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Smith Lee
January 19, 2021

Drafting arbitration clauses: lessons learned in 2020

One of the many uncertainties of Brexit is the impact it will have on the enforcement of English court jurisdiction clauses and English court judgments across the EU. Despite the hopes of the legal community, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not contain any provisions on civil judicial cooperation, so there remains uncertainty over what will replace the previous regime as set out in the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention. The EU may agree to the UK acceding to the Lugano Convention but, for now, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be determined by the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements or national laws.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Brian Snyder
January 5, 2021

What happens when an arbitral tribunal makes a mistake? Doglemor Trade Ltd v Caledor Consulting Ltd

There are various means open to a party to an arbitration to seek correction of a mistake by an arbitral tribunal depending on the nature of the mistake.  For example, section 57 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) empowers the tribunal of its own initiative or upon the application of a party to:

  • Correct an award so as to remove any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission or clarify or remove any ambiguity in the award (section 57(3)(a)).
  • Make an additional award in respect of any claim which was presented to the tribunal but was not dealt with in the award (section 57(3)(b)).

Section 69 of the AA 1996 provides a procedure for challenging mistaken determinations of law. Section 68 provides a procedure for challenging awards affected by serious irregularity, including irregularity caused by mistake or inadvertence on the part of the tribunal.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Ali Hashisho
January 4, 2021

Apparent authority under UAE Federal Arbitration Law: from mirage to reality

What was once a mirage on the horizon of the arbitration landscape of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has now become reality under the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (FAL), which entered into force with effect from 16 June 2018. Following a consistent line of recent case law precedent, there can be no more doubt that the doctrine of apparent authority applies to the formation of arbitration agreements under the FAL and as such relaxes the strict requirement for a special power of attorney in the terms of article 58(2) of the UAE Civil Procedures Code (CPC). That requirement, which used to exist under the former UAE Arbitration Chapter on the basis that arbitration qualifies as an exceptional form of dispute resolution in derogation from the fundamental right to go to court, persists under the FAL in the terms of article 4(1), pursuant to which “on the pain of nullity”, only an original rightsholder or “a representative with a specific authority to arbitrate” is empowered to bind to arbitration.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Loriene Perera
December 23, 2020

Oh, what a year! 2020 arbitration year in review

2020 may have been many things, but it will not have been forgettable. While the biggest story in the world of arbitration was undoubtedly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it did not stop major steps being taken to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), significant arbitration decisions being handed down by the English courts and arbitration practitioners having another busy year of bringing and defending claims.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | David Mdzinarishvili
December 22, 2020

Halliburton v Chubb: UK Supreme Court clarifies position on arbitrators’ duties of impartiality and disclosure in London-seated arbitrations

In Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd, the UK Supreme Court dismissed Halliburton’s appeal concerning its application to remove an arbitrator for apparent bias on the facts. However, it also emphasised the importance of arbitrator impartiality in London-seated arbitrations. The judgment addresses the circumstances in which an arbitrator may appear to be biased and the scope of an arbitrator’s duty of disclosure in this context.

Continue reading →