Jusletter

Table of contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Facts of Halliburton v. Chubb
• 2.1. The commercial facts
• 2.2. The Halliburton-Chubb arbitration
• 2.3. The proceedings before the courts below seeking to remove Mr Rokison as president for bias
• 2.4. The proceedings before the Supreme Court
• 2.5. Lord Hodge’s reasons for the majority
• 2.5.1. Issues
• 2.5.2. The duty of impartiality in the context of arbitration
• 2.5.3. The relationship between disclosure and the duty of privacy and confidentiality
• 2.5.4. The scope of the duty to disclose
• 2.5.5. Whether a failure to make disclosure can demonstrate a lack of impartiality
• 2.5.6. The time of the assessment of the need for disclosure
• 2.5.7. The time of assessment of the possibility of bias
• 2.5.8. Whether and to what extent an arbitrator may accept appointments in multiple arbitrations concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party without thereby giving rise to an appearance of bias
• 2.5.9. Whether and to what extent an arbitrator may accept the multiple references without making disclosure to the party who is not the common party
• 2.5.10. Application on the facts
• 2.5.11. Lady Arden’s supplementary reasons
• 2.6. Commentary
• 2.6.1. The challenge process
• 2.6.2. The usefulness of this decision
• 2.6.3. Objective tests for conflicts and disclosure
• 2.6.4. Accounting for the particularities of arbitration
• 2.6.5. The legal basis for the disclosure obligation
• 2.6.6. Duties to investigate existence of conflicts
• 2.6.7. Treatment of overlapping arbitrations
• 2.6.8. Treatment of whether failure to disclose can be an indication of conflict
• 2.6.9. Relevant time for the bias assessment
• 2.6.10. The relationship between the arbitrator’s duty of confidentiality and the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure
• 2.6.11. Concern to develop the law consistently with the demands of commerce and arbitration
• 2.6.12. Procedural features