A barrister, appointed to act in an arbitration, was not to be prevented from acting, because another barrister in the same set acted for one of the parties. The conditions for removal of an arbitrator was as to the objective presence of bias.
Judges:
Rix J
Citations:
Times 21-May-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 113, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 45, [1999] CLC 1124, Independent 24-May-1999
Statutes:
Cited by:
Mentioned – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd CA 24-May-2005
The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Arbitration
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82900