The requirement for arbitrators to act “impartially” is enshrined in the English Arbitration Act (and together with “independence”, in the Model Law and many institutional rules). This note reviews these concepts in light of the judgments in Almazeedi and Halliburton.
The Singapore High Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitration award under A.34 of the Model Law, finding that the tribunal had jurisdiction and that its composition was in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
The SCC issued a report in August reviewing decisions by the SCC Board concerning challenges to arbitrators during 2016-2018, finding that 8 out of 46 challenges succeeded.Continue Reading
In an important decision, a Singapore court finds that the time to bring a setting aside application under Article 34(3) of the Model Law cannot be extended.Continue Reading
Hugill & Ip provide an overview of the arbitral process in Hong Kong, dealing with …Continue Reading
White & Case considers the objectives of a party when selecting a party-appointed arbitrator. The …Continue Reading
Latham & Watkins review the decision in Halliburton v Chubb, where the English Court of …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Allianz Insurance and Sirius …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review a December 2017 decision from the Japanese Supreme Court (Case No. …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English High Court’s decision in Tonicstar Limited v Allianz Insurance …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the Federal Court of Australia’s decisions in Hui v Esposito Holdings …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the English Court’s 2017 decision in Silver Dry Bulk Company Limited …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the decision of the Hong Kong High Court in Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision in Tronic International v Topco …Continue Reading