Arbitrators should disclose subsequent appointments to related arbitration proceedings, particularly if cases materially overlap.

By Oliver E. Browne and Robert Price

In the Halliburton v Chubb ruling, the Court of Appeal held that an arbitrator who did not disclose subsequent appointments to related arbitration proceedings should have disclosed those subsequent appointments both as a matter of good practice and as a matter of law. The lack of disclosure did not however constitute sufficient grounds for the removal of the arbitrator under section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 for justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.

Background

The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig spawned a number of related arbitration proceedings involving various parties. Transocean was the owner of the rig, BP was the lessee of the rig, and Halliburton provided cementing and well-monitoring services to BP. Both Transocean and Halliburton obtained insurance from Chubb.

By Jonathan Hew

On 5 January 2016, the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (ICC) announced two decisions aimed at enhancing the efficiency and transparency of its arbitration proceedings:

1. Court to publish certain details of arbitrators sitting in ICC cases. These details will be posted on the Court’s website and will comprise the names of arbitrators, their nationality, whether they were appointed by the parties of the ICC, and which arbitrator was appointed as the tribunal chairperson.