Objection was made the panel selected to undertake an arbitration. It was said that one member of the panel had been found to be subject to proper objectin for an apparent bias, and that the remaining panel members should recuse themselves for association with the one removed.
Held: The fact that one member of a panel might be subject to such an objection did not taint the entire panel. That was not a universal effect. The third member of the panel should have recused himself, but the preliminary decision. Whether the remaining panel members might be tainted was a question of fact for each case.
Judges:
The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Citations:
Times 08-Aug-2007, [2007] EWHC 1513 (Comm), [2007] BusLR D105, [2007] ArbLR 5
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England CA 16-Oct-2006
The court at first instance had dismissed the ship-owner’s application to set aside the arbitration award, and then refused leave to appeal. The court of appeal had to consider whether it had jurisdiction itself to hear an application for leave.
See Also – ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England ComC 20-Apr-2007
. .
See Also – TTMI Ltd of England v ASM Shipping Ltd of India ComC 23-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England ComC 19-Oct-2005
The court upheld an objection to one member of the arbitration panel for apparent bias, but refused to set aside a preliminary decision of the panel. . .
See Also – ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England Admn 20-Apr-2007
Application to remove arbitrators. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Natural Justice
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.253752
