Arbitrator independence and impartiality: occasional briefing by a party's law firm does not by itself create disqualification.
An advocate appointed as arbitrator is not ineligible merely because he is occasionally briefed by the law firm appearing for one party, where he has never represented that party. The amended arbitration provisions on independence, impartiality, disclosure and ineligibility target a proximate relationship that creates justifiable doubts or a reasonable apprehension of bias. Item 3 of the Seventh Schedule and the corresponding Fifth Schedule entry apply when the law firm itself is the client, or the arbitrator is truly representing that firm, not where the firm briefs independent counsel in unrelated matters. The alleged connection was too remote to amount to statutory disqualification, and the challenge failed.
Issues: Whether an advocate appointed as an arbitrator becomes ineligible merely because he is occasionally briefed by the law firm appearing for one of the parties, even though he has never represented that party; and whether such a connection attracts disqualification under the amended arbitration law.
Analysis: The amended provisions on independence, impartiality, disclosure and ineligibility are aimed at preventing bias and reasonable apprehension of bias. The relevant relationship must be proximate and must connect the arbitrator with the party, counsel or subject matter in a manner that gives rise to justifiable doubts. The expression that an arbitrator "currently represents the lawyer or law firm" does not cover independent counsel who merely receives briefs from that firm in other matters. Item 3 of the Seventh Schedule and the corresponding entry in the Fifth Schedule apply where the law firm itself is the client or where the arbitrator is otherwise truly representing the firm, not where the firm briefs counsel for different litigants. The connection alleged was too remote to amount to statutory disqualification.
Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitrators failed. Occasional briefing by the respondent law firm did not render the arbitrators ineligible or disqualified.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
