header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A big fish in a small pond?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
05 September 2025 / Akshay Misra , Bronagh Adams
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Bias , Jurisdiction
printer mail-detail
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
Sponsored by
Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
NLJ this week: Ignore covenants at your peril
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll