header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 September 2025 / Akshay Misra , Bronagh Adams
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Bias , Jurisdiction
printer mail-detail

A big fish in a small pond?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
228903
Akshay Misra & Bronagh Adams on how a recent judgment provides a robust endorsement of the work of the LMAA
  • The Commercial Court has confirmed that repeat appointments in LMAA arbitrations do not automatically imply bias.

The English Commercial Court in V and another; K v V and another [2025] EWHC 1523 (Comm) has confirmed the high threshold required to challenge arbitral awards on grounds of apparent bias and jurisdictional error. The judgment underscores the robustness of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) framework and highlights the importance of context in the approach to arbitrators’ duties of disclosure. The decision also provides further clarity on the application of the principles established in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48.

Background

The seller, K, terminated a memorandum of agreement for the sale of a vessel after US sanctions were imposed on the buyer, V, by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. V had nominated a related party to take delivery

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll