The Test for Apparent Bias and Arbitrators’ Duties of Disclosure Following Halliburton v. Chubb: Welcome Clarification, but Questions Remain

Nigel Rawding, Charles Kimmins, Luke Pearce, Olivia Valner
{"title":"The Test for Apparent Bias and Arbitrators’ Duties of Disclosure Following Halliburton v. Chubb: Welcome Clarification, but Questions Remain","authors":"Nigel Rawding, Charles Kimmins, Luke Pearce, Olivia Valner","doi":"10.54648/joia2021018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"UK The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Halliburton v. Chubb in November 2020. The case addressed the test for apparent bias and the issue of arbitrators’ duties of disclosure in English-seated arbitrations. The authors of this article represented the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) as interveners in the Supreme Court appeal.\nThis article explores the key points arising out of the judgment and takes stock of the current position under English law. The authors discuss certain issues that remain open following the judgment, including the relationship between the duties of disclosure and confidentiality. They explore the extent to which parties’ adoption of institutional rules can modify the English law position, and comment on the extent to which English law is now in line with that of other jurisdictions.\nThe article notes that Halliburton v. Chubb is one of a number of recent cases globally concerning the scope of arbitrators’ duties. It concludes that while the decision of the Supreme Court provides a welcome degree of clarity as to the English law position, and a necessary confirmation that the English courts take a robust approach to such issues, the judgment itself was necessarily confined to relatively narrow facts. As such, questions relating to arbitrators’ duties are likely to return to the spotlight in future cases, and English law is likely to continue to develop as the relevant principles are applied to different fact patterns and as new norms emerge amongst arbitrators.\nHalliburton v. Chubb, Arbitrators’ duties, Duty of disclosure, Apparent bias, Conflicts of interest, Impartiality, Challenges to arbitrators, Arbitration Act 1996, Confidentiality, Supreme Court","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

UK The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Halliburton v. Chubb in November 2020. The case addressed the test for apparent bias and the issue of arbitrators’ duties of disclosure in English-seated arbitrations. The authors of this article represented the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) as interveners in the Supreme Court appeal. This article explores the key points arising out of the judgment and takes stock of the current position under English law. The authors discuss certain issues that remain open following the judgment, including the relationship between the duties of disclosure and confidentiality. They explore the extent to which parties’ adoption of institutional rules can modify the English law position, and comment on the extent to which English law is now in line with that of other jurisdictions. The article notes that Halliburton v. Chubb is one of a number of recent cases globally concerning the scope of arbitrators’ duties. It concludes that while the decision of the Supreme Court provides a welcome degree of clarity as to the English law position, and a necessary confirmation that the English courts take a robust approach to such issues, the judgment itself was necessarily confined to relatively narrow facts. As such, questions relating to arbitrators’ duties are likely to return to the spotlight in future cases, and English law is likely to continue to develop as the relevant principles are applied to different fact patterns and as new norms emerge amongst arbitrators. Halliburton v. Chubb, Arbitrators’ duties, Duty of disclosure, Apparent bias, Conflicts of interest, Impartiality, Challenges to arbitrators, Arbitration Act 1996, Confidentiality, Supreme Court
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哈里伯顿诉丘布案后对明显偏见和仲裁员披露义务的检验:欢迎澄清,但问题仍然存在
英国最高法院于2020年11月宣布了哈里伯顿诉查布案的判决。该案例解决了明显偏见的检验和仲裁员在英国仲裁中的披露义务问题。本文的作者代表伦敦国际仲裁法院(LCIA)作为最高法院上诉的干预者。本文探讨了判决中出现的关键点,并对英国法律的现状进行了评估。作者讨论了判决后仍未解决的一些问题,包括披露义务和保密义务之间的关系。他们探讨了当事人采用制度规则可以在多大程度上改变英国法律的立场,并评论了英国法律目前与其他司法管辖区的法律一致的程度。文章指出,哈里伯顿诉查布案是最近全球范围内涉及仲裁员职责范围的若干案件之一。它的结论是,虽然最高法院的裁决为英国法律立场提供了令人欢迎的清晰程度,并必要地确认了英国法院对此类问题采取了强有力的方法,但判决本身必然局限于相对狭窄的事实。因此,在未来的案件中,与仲裁员职责有关的问题可能会重新成为焦点,随着相关原则适用于不同的事实模式以及仲裁员之间出现新的规范,英国法律可能会继续发展。哈里伯顿诉丘伯,仲裁员的职责,披露义务,明显偏见,利益冲突,公正性,对仲裁员的挑战,1996年仲裁法,保密性,最高法院
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1