Fountain Court Chambers

London & Singapore

Supreme Court judgment on apparent bias and obligations of disclosure and confidentiality in international arbitration

Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Limited (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 48

The Supreme Court has dismissed Halliburton’s appeal against the rejection of its application to remove an arbitrator under section 24 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In a judgment eagerly awaited by the arbitration community, the Supreme Court addressed questions of apparent bias arising in connection with the acceptance by an arbitrator of multiple appointments involving one common party and related subject matter, and in so doing examined the scope of obligations of disclosure under common law and their relationship with an arbitrator’s duties of confidentiality.

Michael Crane QC was instructed by Clyde & Co for the Respondent, Chubb Bermuda Insurance Limited. A copy of the Supreme Court press summary can be found here, and the full judgment here.

LexisNexis has recently published a note outlining the background to the case and commenting on the decision. The note includes contributions from Akhil Shah QC and lawyers from Stewarts Law and Latham & Watkins.