header-logo header-logo

15 June 2018 / Eleanor Scogings , Hanna Roos , Philip Clifford KC
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Features , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitrator challenges: the long view

nlj_7797_clifford

Philip Clifford QC, Hanna Roos & Eleanor Scogings track the nature & trends of two decades of arbitrator challenges

  • An analysis of LCIA court and English court decisions on challenges to arbitrators between 1996 and 2017 reveals a robust and consistent approach.

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) recently published 32 anonymised summaries of arbitrator challenges decided by the LCIA during the period 2010 to 2017, supplementing the previous publication of 28 decisions from 1996 to 2010. When analysed together with applications to the English court to remove arbitrators brought between 1996 and 2017, it is evident that both the LCIA court and the English court have dealt with challenges robustly and consistently.

An overview

The majority of the challenge decisions reviewed were brought under Article 10.3 of the 1998 LCIA Arbitration Rules, on the ground that there were justifiable doubts as to the arbitrators’ independence or impartiality. However, there were also a significant number of challenges under Article 10.2, on the grounds that the arbitrators deliberately violated

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll