Arbitrations, multiple references and apparent bias

In Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48 the Supreme Court, in a wide-ranging judgment, dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our July 2018 issue, pp 10–12) and held that the fair-minded and informed observer, looking at the facts and circumstances which were known to him or her at the date of the first instance hearing in the present case, would not have concluded that there was a real possibility of bias arising out of the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his appointment as an arbitrator in potentially overlapping arbitrations. Nor were there justifiable doubts about the impartiality of the arbitrator. The significance of the case goes well beyond its immediate facts, embracing issues such as the nature of the duty of impartiality as it is applied to arbitration, the differences between the role of a judge and an arbitrator when considering allegations of apparent bias and the duty of an arbitrator to make disclosure of his or her appointments in potentially overlapping arbitrations consistently with the duty of the arbitrator to respect privacy and confidentiality. The decision of the Supreme Court is one of the most significant decisions on the law of arbitration in recent years, and it will take some time in order to be able fully to assess its practical implications.