In
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd,(1) the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal s decision to dismiss an application to remove an arbitrator on the grounds of apparent bias. The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal s decision that arbitrators are under a duty to disclose appointments in references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with a common party, although the Supreme Court s reasoning differed. On the facts of this case, while the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator had breached his disclosure obligations, it further held that an objective observer would not have justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator s impartiality.
2021 ICC Arbitration Rules Come Into Force Friday, January 8, 2021
ICC”) launched the Revised Rules of Arbitration (“
2021 ICC Rules”), on 1 December 2020.
1 The 2021 ICC Rules enter into force on January 1, 2021. The ICC Arbitration Rules 2017 (“
2017 ICC Rules”) will continue to apply to cases registered prior to January 1, 2021.
2 The amendments in the 2021 ICC Rules are a step towards greater efficiency, flexibility and transparency in ICC arbitrations.
3
Joinder of Parties and Consolidation of Proceedings;
Disclosure of Third-Party Funding;
Provisions for Investment Treaty Arbitrations;
Remote Hearings;
Governing Law and Settlement of Disputes
We are glad to have comments and inputs from leading arbitrators, practitioners and ICC members around the world on the implications of the 2021 ICC Rules.
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.
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.