Khawar Qureshi QC provides an update on recent accusations of arbitrator bias
While London remains the pre-eminent seat for international arbitration, it is vital that the fundamental requirements of fairness, expedition, cost effectiveness and finality are maintained and promoted by users, institutions and the courts. In this regard, as the author has remarked in previous articles, there are signs that parties are becoming more aggressive in questioning, as well as challenging arbitrators (see “A double act”, 159 NLJ 7368, p 667, “Time for change?” Pt 1, 163 NLJ 7582, p 13 and Pt 2, 163 NLJ 7583, p 14, and “A risky business?”, 165 NLJ 7643, p 11). This may well be a reflection of the erosion of trust in the process, and the perception that the arbitral process lends itself too easily to “clubbiness”. In any event, two decisions within weeks of each other illustrate the consistent approach of the English courts to challenges to arbitrators.
“There are signs that parties are becoming more aggressive in questioning, as well
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=2c3eca9_1)
