Outcome at a glance
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal seeking an arbitrator’s removal. Although disclosure should have been made, the circumstances at the removal hearing did not establish apparent bias. [1; 2]
Allegations & issues
Halliburton challenged an arbitrator who accepted appointments in related Deepwater Horizon insurance arbitrations, including another involving Chubb, without informing Halliburton. [2, Background]
Key rulings & findings
English law imposed a duty of disclosure, but breach and apparent bias were distinct questions. The objective test for removal was not met on the circumstances considered. [2, Reasons]
Admissions
The outcome was a contested judicial determination, not a settlement of the insurance claim. [1; 2]
Disposition
Appeal unanimously dismissed; refusal to remove the arbitrator upheld. [2, Judgment]
Penalties, damages & redress
The Supreme Court did not award insurance compensation or impose a regulatory fine in this appeal. [1; 2]
Restrictions & obligations
The requested removal from this arbitration was refused. The judgment was not a general professional disciplinary ruling. [1; 2]
Overlapping appointments and disclosure
Related references can expose an arbitrator to evidence or arguments that one party does not see. The Court explained why those circumstances may require disclosure, while recognising that expectations depend partly on the practices of the particular field of arbitration. [1; 2, Reasons]
The disclosure obligation was a legal component of fairness and impartiality, not simply professional courtesy. Confidentiality also mattered: the Court addressed how disclosure could be reconciled with obligations owed in other references, including consent. [1; 2, The law]
A breach did not automatically require removal
Whether disclosure should have occurred was assessed when the obligation arose. Whether the arbitrator should be removed was assessed using the circumstances known at the removal hearing. Treating the two questions as identical would erase that distinction. [1; 2, Application]
The Court considered the explanation for non-disclosure and the characteristics of the related proceedings. It concluded that a fair-minded, informed observer would not find a real possibility of bias at the relevant time. The decision therefore upheld the appointment while clarifying the obligation that had not been met. [1; 2]
THE UNDERLYING RECORD
Primary sources
Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.
Court record · supremecourt.uk01 · Supreme Court · Case record and judgment ↗Court record · supremecourt.uk02 · Supreme Court · Press summary, 27 November 2020 ↗