header-logo header-logo

07 May 2009 / Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7368 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

A double act

Should we be concerned if arbitrator & counsel are from the same chambers? Khawar Qureshi QC reports

For many years, London has been seen as the seat of choice for international arbitration. One of the central features of arbitration has been the involvement of English barristers as counsel and arbitrators, due in large part to the specialist skills and high reputation of the English Bar. In addition, the pool of potential arbitrators has been enhanced by retired English judges, as well as internationally qualified lawyers joining barristers' chambers as door tenants.

It has been commonplace for international arbitration proceedings in London (and indeed elsewhere) to feature at least one barrister and one arbitrator from the same set of chambers. Sometimes, the barrister and arbitrator have been appointed by the same party. In other cases, the barrister and arbitrator may be from the same chambers but appointed by different parties.

A question which is acquiring increasing focus is as follows—is it no longer tenable for counsel and arbitrator to be from the same chambers—whether

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

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

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS

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

A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
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
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
back-to-top-scroll