This document summarizes decisions made by the SCC Board on challenges to arbitrators from 2013-2015. During this period, 28 challenges were filed out of 567 new arbitrations. The SCC Board was required to make a decision on 14 of the challenges. The document reviews the standard for impartiality in SCC arbitrations, the SCC procedure for handling challenges, and provides brief summaries of 4 challenges that were dismissed by the SCC Board during this period.
The document summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of a Special Commission meeting regarding the practical operation of the Hague Conventions on Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to Justice. Key points include encouraging states to promote and join the conventions, updating information on central authorities, using modern technologies to improve operation of the conventions, and interpreting the scope of the conventions liberally to facilitate cross-border judicial cooperation.
A dispute arose after the completion of the liquidation proceeding and whether the dispute relates to special legislation, such as the Copyright Act, where civil courts have been granted exclusive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.
New customs regulations notified
The CBEC has notified the new regulations
regarding electronic filing of shipping bills (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt80-2k11.htm) and bills of entry (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt79-2k11.htm), and regarding provisional assessment (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt81-2k11.htm
This document provides guidelines for national competent authorities (NCAs) on assessing institutional protection schemes (IPSs) for prudential purposes pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. It specifies the approach NCAs should take in evaluating whether IPSs and their members meet the conditions laid out in Article 113(7) of the Regulation. The guidelines cover assessing the prudential status and legal domicile of IPS counterparties, the ability to promptly transfer funds between members, the capacity of IPSs to grant necessary support to members, risk monitoring and classification systems, and consolidated reporting requirements, among other criteria. NCAs are to apply these specifications consistently when recognizing IPSs consisting of less significant institutions under their
The document discusses several miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee (Nosegay Kinder Garden and Nosegay Public School) regarding rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's appellate order. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to dispose of grounds taken in the memo and consider arguments and judgments referred to. The Tribunal agreed that mistakes were apparent from the record, as it had not adjudicated on the assessee's status or considered a Supreme Court judgment. It recalled its order to rectify these mistakes and properly address the assessee's grounds regarding its status and the applicability of case law.
This document summarizes a conference held in Sydney, Australia from July 8-10, 2015 on construction, building and real estate research. It contains the proceedings from the conference, including various papers presented on topics related to adjudication of payment disputes in the Australian construction industry. One such paper examines how adjudicators should deal with expert reports in statutory adjudication processes, given time constraints and the increasing complexity of disputes. It analyzes several relevant court cases and discusses the challenges adjudicators face when required to consider extensive evidence like expert reports within tight deadlines.
The document summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of a Special Commission meeting regarding the practical operation of the Hague Conventions on Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to Justice. Key points include encouraging states to promote and join the conventions, updating information on central authorities, using modern technologies to improve operation of the conventions, and interpreting the scope of the conventions liberally to facilitate cross-border judicial cooperation.
A dispute arose after the completion of the liquidation proceeding and whether the dispute relates to special legislation, such as the Copyright Act, where civil courts have been granted exclusive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.
New customs regulations notified
The CBEC has notified the new regulations
regarding electronic filing of shipping bills (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt80-2k11.htm) and bills of entry (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt79-2k11.htm), and regarding provisional assessment (http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k11/cs-nt2k11/csnt81-2k11.htm
This document provides guidelines for national competent authorities (NCAs) on assessing institutional protection schemes (IPSs) for prudential purposes pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. It specifies the approach NCAs should take in evaluating whether IPSs and their members meet the conditions laid out in Article 113(7) of the Regulation. The guidelines cover assessing the prudential status and legal domicile of IPS counterparties, the ability to promptly transfer funds between members, the capacity of IPSs to grant necessary support to members, risk monitoring and classification systems, and consolidated reporting requirements, among other criteria. NCAs are to apply these specifications consistently when recognizing IPSs consisting of less significant institutions under their
The document discusses several miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee (Nosegay Kinder Garden and Nosegay Public School) regarding rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's appellate order. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to dispose of grounds taken in the memo and consider arguments and judgments referred to. The Tribunal agreed that mistakes were apparent from the record, as it had not adjudicated on the assessee's status or considered a Supreme Court judgment. It recalled its order to rectify these mistakes and properly address the assessee's grounds regarding its status and the applicability of case law.
This document summarizes a conference held in Sydney, Australia from July 8-10, 2015 on construction, building and real estate research. It contains the proceedings from the conference, including various papers presented on topics related to adjudication of payment disputes in the Australian construction industry. One such paper examines how adjudicators should deal with expert reports in statutory adjudication processes, given time constraints and the increasing complexity of disputes. It analyzes several relevant court cases and discusses the challenges adjudicators face when required to consider extensive evidence like expert reports within tight deadlines.
This newsletter from UK Adjudicators provides updates on security of payment laws and adjudication. It discusses training being offered in 2019 to support applicants to their adjudicator panel. It also summarizes differences between how Australian and English courts treat severing valid parts of an adjudicator's decision from parts affected by jurisdictional error. Additionally, it provides updates on legislation regarding construction retention schemes in the UK and amendments to security of payment laws in New South Wales.
This document discusses options for enforcing an international arbitral award in a country that has not ratified the New York Convention. It uses the example of enforcing an award in Seychelles. While Seychelles has not ratified the Convention, its commercial code incorporates the Convention's principles on a reciprocal basis. The document argues this allows enforcement of awards from countries like France that are Convention signatories. Alternatively, enforcement could rely on principles of fulfilling contractual obligations to arbitrate or common law precedents from other jurisdictions. The document examines case law and legislation from Seychelles, France, and England to support these positions.
Causes of Delay in the Resolution of Commercial Disputes Via Litigation Arbit...ijtsrd
An essential requirement of justice is that it should be dispensed as quickly as possible. It is a well known adage that, « justice delayed is justice denied». Delay in litigation is caused by a number of factors. For example in litigation the parties have the right to make a counterclaim, right to make appeal etc. Arbitration has been able to overcome the factors which cause delay in litigation because in arbitration, parties are given the right to exclude the possibility to make a counterclaim, the right to make appeal has expressly been prohibited by the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Laws in Africa OHADA 1 legislator etc. But since the OHADA legislator has not expressly prohibited counter claim in arbitration, it is recommended that counterclaim should be expressly prohibited in arbitration as it is the case with appeal. This article aims at identifying the causes of delay in the disposal of commercial disputes via litigation and how these causes of delay have been combated in arbitration. Buma Roland Sigala ""Causes of Delay in the Resolution of Commercial Disputes Via Litigation: Arbitration as a Way out withn Ohada Laws"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-3 | Issue-4 , June 2019, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd23940.pdf
Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/law-and-management/23940/causes-of-delay-in-the-resolution-of-commercial-disputes-via-litigation-arbitration-as-a-way-out-withn-ohada-laws/buma-roland-sigala
This overview of Cyprus Dispute Resolution Q&A gives a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning dispute resolution in this jurisdiction, including court procedures; fees and funding; interim remedies (including attachment orders); disclosure; expert evidence; appeals; class actions; enforcement; cross-border issues and the use of ADR.
This document summarizes the rules around costs awards in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). It notes that the starting point is that each party bears their own costs, but NCAT may award costs if there are "special circumstances." It discusses what has constituted special circumstances in past NCAT cases and how different divisions and enabling legislation may modify the costs rules. It also addresses apportioning costs awards when a party succeeds on some issues but fails on others.
This document summarizes key aspects of litigation and the legal system in the UK. It describes barristers as specialist advocates who represent clients in higher courts, arbitrations, and alternative dispute resolution. It outlines the UK legal system, including the different courts that handle civil and criminal cases and the appellate courts. It also discusses pre-action protocols, jurisdictional issues, enforcing judgments, expert witnesses, costs reforms, and the popularity of the common law system.
This document discusses statutory adjudication, which was introduced to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. It examines various review mechanisms for erroneous adjudication determinations that exist in different jurisdictions. The paper argues that an appropriately designed legislative review mechanism, like those in Singapore and proposed in Tasmania that allow a full review of the merits of determinations, could optimize statutory adjudication and increase parties' confidence by attaining procedural fairness, accessibility and finality. This could make adjudication a more effective alternative dispute resolution for construction payment disputes.
This document discusses arbitration and environmental protection laws in India. It provides an overview of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, including objectives to minimize court oversight of arbitrations and enforce arbitration awards like court decrees. It outlines benefits for parties in arbitration, such as choosing arbitrators and procedures. The document also discusses appropriate and inappropriate matters for arbitration, and proposed amendments to the Act. Additionally, it covers environmental control legislation and the responsibilities and processes involved in obtaining environmental clearances for projects in India.
Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in IrelandMatheson Law Firm
Partner Julie Murphy-O'Connor and Senior Associate Gearóid Carey of the Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department co-author an article for Lexology Navigator - Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ireland.
1) The Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling that stricter limits intra-group financing arrangements. Up-stream and cross-stream loans not granted at arm's length terms block a group member's freely distributable equity in the amount of such loans, limiting future dividend distributions.
2) The Court also ruled that additional paid-in capital is treated like general reserves and can be distributed as dividends.
3) The ruling increased uncertainty around cash pooling arrangements and intra-group loans. It will lead auditors to more closely scrutinize such arrangements and upstream/cross-stream loans to assess compliance with the ruling.
The document analyzes the effectiveness of Moldova's mechanism for compensating damages caused by protracted court proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, as established by Law No. 87. It summarizes previous analyses that found the mechanism examined cases slowly and awarded low compensation. The current analysis of 176 cases from 2017-2020 finds similar issues, with cases taking around a year and compensation rarely meeting standards. It aims to promote uniform practice and increase the mechanism's practical efficiency.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2017, 2nd Edition Matheson Law Firm
This document provides an overview of the enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland. It discusses that under Irish common law, a foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced if it is for a definite sum, final and conclusive, and was issued by a court with proper jurisdiction. It outlines the process of seeking recognition and enforcement, which involves commencing fresh proceedings in the Irish High Court. It also discusses special regimes that apply to judgments from EU countries and signatories to international treaties. Overall, the document serves as a guide to the legal framework and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in Ireland.
Getting the Deal Through: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2019Matheson Law Firm
Partner Julie Murphy O'Connor and senior associate Gearóid Carey co-author the Ireland chapter for Getting the Deal Through: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2019.
The document discusses the concept of emergency procedures in international arbitration. It begins by explaining the origins of emergency procedures, noting they were first introduced in 1990 by the ICC to allow parties to seek interim relief before an arbitration tribunal is formed. It then discusses a key 2003 court case that established emergency decisions are binding due to party agreement rather than having legal effect as arbitral awards. The document also compares the emergency procedure rules of different arbitral institutions and discusses factors for a successful emergency relief application. Finally, it analyzes enforceability of emergency decisions under Russian law and potential consequences for non-compliance.
Some landmark judgements of supreme court on direct taxesMiraj Mor
The document discusses the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. It provides details on when a Supreme Court judgment constitutes the law of the land and how lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedents. It also discusses the differences between ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, and casual observations in Supreme Court judgments and how they should be treated. Finally, it summarizes several important Supreme Court rulings on various issues under the Income Tax Act.
This document summarizes recent developments in dispute resolution in Malaysia. Key points include:
1) The Rules of Court 2012 came into force on August 1, 2012 simplifying civil procedures and emphasizing substance over form.
2) The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 and Mediation Act 2012 also came into effect, expanding alternative dispute resolution options.
3) Court statistics show high disposal rates within mandated timelines, including over 90% of commercial and civil cases in High Courts resolved within 9 months. The Court of Appeal disposed of 154% of registered cases in 2012.
The President of India has promulgated Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 on 23.10.2015 bringing revolutionary changes i.e. no more departmental arbitrators, case to be completed within 12 months etc.
Arbitration of matrimonial property disputes in Australia Corey Gauci
1) Arbitration under the Family Law Act allows parties to have property and financial disputes privately resolved by an arbitrator of their choosing rather than through traditional court litigation.
2) Arbitrators must be legal practitioners with family law experience and training. They have a duty to resolve disputes fairly and disclose any biases.
3) The main advantages of arbitration are reduced costs, privacy, and letting the parties control the process. However, arbitration is only suitable when facts are agreed upon and financial disclosure is full. Arbitral awards can be reviewed by courts on questions of law.
This newsletter from UK Adjudicators provides updates on security of payment laws and adjudication. It discusses training being offered in 2019 to support applicants to their adjudicator panel. It also summarizes differences between how Australian and English courts treat severing valid parts of an adjudicator's decision from parts affected by jurisdictional error. Additionally, it provides updates on legislation regarding construction retention schemes in the UK and amendments to security of payment laws in New South Wales.
This document discusses options for enforcing an international arbitral award in a country that has not ratified the New York Convention. It uses the example of enforcing an award in Seychelles. While Seychelles has not ratified the Convention, its commercial code incorporates the Convention's principles on a reciprocal basis. The document argues this allows enforcement of awards from countries like France that are Convention signatories. Alternatively, enforcement could rely on principles of fulfilling contractual obligations to arbitrate or common law precedents from other jurisdictions. The document examines case law and legislation from Seychelles, France, and England to support these positions.
Causes of Delay in the Resolution of Commercial Disputes Via Litigation Arbit...ijtsrd
An essential requirement of justice is that it should be dispensed as quickly as possible. It is a well known adage that, « justice delayed is justice denied». Delay in litigation is caused by a number of factors. For example in litigation the parties have the right to make a counterclaim, right to make appeal etc. Arbitration has been able to overcome the factors which cause delay in litigation because in arbitration, parties are given the right to exclude the possibility to make a counterclaim, the right to make appeal has expressly been prohibited by the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Laws in Africa OHADA 1 legislator etc. But since the OHADA legislator has not expressly prohibited counter claim in arbitration, it is recommended that counterclaim should be expressly prohibited in arbitration as it is the case with appeal. This article aims at identifying the causes of delay in the disposal of commercial disputes via litigation and how these causes of delay have been combated in arbitration. Buma Roland Sigala ""Causes of Delay in the Resolution of Commercial Disputes Via Litigation: Arbitration as a Way out withn Ohada Laws"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-3 | Issue-4 , June 2019, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd23940.pdf
Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/law-and-management/23940/causes-of-delay-in-the-resolution-of-commercial-disputes-via-litigation-arbitration-as-a-way-out-withn-ohada-laws/buma-roland-sigala
This overview of Cyprus Dispute Resolution Q&A gives a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning dispute resolution in this jurisdiction, including court procedures; fees and funding; interim remedies (including attachment orders); disclosure; expert evidence; appeals; class actions; enforcement; cross-border issues and the use of ADR.
This document summarizes the rules around costs awards in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). It notes that the starting point is that each party bears their own costs, but NCAT may award costs if there are "special circumstances." It discusses what has constituted special circumstances in past NCAT cases and how different divisions and enabling legislation may modify the costs rules. It also addresses apportioning costs awards when a party succeeds on some issues but fails on others.
This document summarizes key aspects of litigation and the legal system in the UK. It describes barristers as specialist advocates who represent clients in higher courts, arbitrations, and alternative dispute resolution. It outlines the UK legal system, including the different courts that handle civil and criminal cases and the appellate courts. It also discusses pre-action protocols, jurisdictional issues, enforcing judgments, expert witnesses, costs reforms, and the popularity of the common law system.
This document discusses statutory adjudication, which was introduced to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. It examines various review mechanisms for erroneous adjudication determinations that exist in different jurisdictions. The paper argues that an appropriately designed legislative review mechanism, like those in Singapore and proposed in Tasmania that allow a full review of the merits of determinations, could optimize statutory adjudication and increase parties' confidence by attaining procedural fairness, accessibility and finality. This could make adjudication a more effective alternative dispute resolution for construction payment disputes.
This document discusses arbitration and environmental protection laws in India. It provides an overview of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, including objectives to minimize court oversight of arbitrations and enforce arbitration awards like court decrees. It outlines benefits for parties in arbitration, such as choosing arbitrators and procedures. The document also discusses appropriate and inappropriate matters for arbitration, and proposed amendments to the Act. Additionally, it covers environmental control legislation and the responsibilities and processes involved in obtaining environmental clearances for projects in India.
Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in IrelandMatheson Law Firm
Partner Julie Murphy-O'Connor and Senior Associate Gearóid Carey of the Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department co-author an article for Lexology Navigator - Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ireland.
1) The Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling that stricter limits intra-group financing arrangements. Up-stream and cross-stream loans not granted at arm's length terms block a group member's freely distributable equity in the amount of such loans, limiting future dividend distributions.
2) The Court also ruled that additional paid-in capital is treated like general reserves and can be distributed as dividends.
3) The ruling increased uncertainty around cash pooling arrangements and intra-group loans. It will lead auditors to more closely scrutinize such arrangements and upstream/cross-stream loans to assess compliance with the ruling.
The document analyzes the effectiveness of Moldova's mechanism for compensating damages caused by protracted court proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, as established by Law No. 87. It summarizes previous analyses that found the mechanism examined cases slowly and awarded low compensation. The current analysis of 176 cases from 2017-2020 finds similar issues, with cases taking around a year and compensation rarely meeting standards. It aims to promote uniform practice and increase the mechanism's practical efficiency.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2017, 2nd Edition Matheson Law Firm
This document provides an overview of the enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland. It discusses that under Irish common law, a foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced if it is for a definite sum, final and conclusive, and was issued by a court with proper jurisdiction. It outlines the process of seeking recognition and enforcement, which involves commencing fresh proceedings in the Irish High Court. It also discusses special regimes that apply to judgments from EU countries and signatories to international treaties. Overall, the document serves as a guide to the legal framework and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in Ireland.
Getting the Deal Through: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2019Matheson Law Firm
Partner Julie Murphy O'Connor and senior associate Gearóid Carey co-author the Ireland chapter for Getting the Deal Through: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2019.
The document discusses the concept of emergency procedures in international arbitration. It begins by explaining the origins of emergency procedures, noting they were first introduced in 1990 by the ICC to allow parties to seek interim relief before an arbitration tribunal is formed. It then discusses a key 2003 court case that established emergency decisions are binding due to party agreement rather than having legal effect as arbitral awards. The document also compares the emergency procedure rules of different arbitral institutions and discusses factors for a successful emergency relief application. Finally, it analyzes enforceability of emergency decisions under Russian law and potential consequences for non-compliance.
Some landmark judgements of supreme court on direct taxesMiraj Mor
The document discusses the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. It provides details on when a Supreme Court judgment constitutes the law of the land and how lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedents. It also discusses the differences between ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, and casual observations in Supreme Court judgments and how they should be treated. Finally, it summarizes several important Supreme Court rulings on various issues under the Income Tax Act.
This document summarizes recent developments in dispute resolution in Malaysia. Key points include:
1) The Rules of Court 2012 came into force on August 1, 2012 simplifying civil procedures and emphasizing substance over form.
2) The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 and Mediation Act 2012 also came into effect, expanding alternative dispute resolution options.
3) Court statistics show high disposal rates within mandated timelines, including over 90% of commercial and civil cases in High Courts resolved within 9 months. The Court of Appeal disposed of 154% of registered cases in 2012.
The President of India has promulgated Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 on 23.10.2015 bringing revolutionary changes i.e. no more departmental arbitrators, case to be completed within 12 months etc.
Arbitration of matrimonial property disputes in Australia Corey Gauci
1) Arbitration under the Family Law Act allows parties to have property and financial disputes privately resolved by an arbitrator of their choosing rather than through traditional court litigation.
2) Arbitrators must be legal practitioners with family law experience and training. They have a duty to resolve disputes fairly and disclose any biases.
3) The main advantages of arbitration are reduced costs, privacy, and letting the parties control the process. However, arbitration is only suitable when facts are agreed upon and financial disclosure is full. Arbitral awards can be reviewed by courts on questions of law.
Similar to Scc decisions-on-challenges-to-arbitrators-2013-2015 (20)
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
1. SCC PRACTICE NOTE
SCC Board Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators 2013-2015
STOCKHOLM, 2016
ANJA HAVEDAL IPP
2. WWW.SCCINSTITUTE.COM
SCC PRACTICE NOTE
SCC Board Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators 2013-2015
BY:
Anja Havedal Ipp, SCC Legal Counsel
Elena Burova, SCC Intern
1. Introduction
Now in its 100th year, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
has developed into one of the world’s leading forums for dispute resolution. The SCC registers
around two hundred new arbitrations a year – ranging from small, local disputes to high-profile
investor-state cases. The SCC maintains two main sets of rules, the Arbitration Rules and the
Rules for Expedited Arbitrations (together, the “SCC Rules”).1
Both provide for a procedure
in line with the best practices in international arbitration. While the Rules set the framework
for each SCC arbitration, they are flexible and allow parties and arbitrators to adapt the
procedure to suit the dispute at hand.
The SCC Rules stipulate, as do most institutional rules, that arbitrators must be impartial and
independent. Before being appointed, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that may
give rise to doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. And if new such circumstances
arise during the course of the arbitration, arbitrators must disclose them immediately. If the
disclosed circumstances – or other circumstances of which a party is aware – give rise to
justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality, the party may challenge
the arbitrator under Article 15 of the SCC Rules. If all other parties agree to the challenge, the
arbitrator must resign. In all other cases, the SCC Board makes a decision on the challenge.
This article will review the SCC Board’s decisions on challenges to arbitrators during the years
2013-2015. In this period, the number of challenges was relatively low in comparison to the
number of new arbitrations registered. From January 2013 through December 2015, 567
arbitral proceedings were initiated at the SCC. In the same time period, a total of 28 challenges
to arbitrators were filed. Many of these challenges resulted in the arbitrator stepping down as
a result of party agreement. The Board was required to make a decision on 14 of the challenges.
Those decisions will be discussed in section 4 below.
1
Revised versions of both sets of rules will enter into force on 1 January 2017. The provisions related
to challenges to arbitrators remain unchanged in the revised rules.
3. 3
2. The standard for arbitrator impartiality in SCC arbitrations
2.1. The SCC Rules
Article 15(1) of the SCC Rules provides that a party may challenge an arbitrator “if
circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or
independence or if he/she does not possess the qualifications agreed by the parties.” The rules
do not define “justifiable doubts”, or explain which circumstances may legitimately give rise
to such doubts. Therefore, when determining whether a challenge filed under this provision
should be sustained, the SCC Board looks to applicable law and best practices in international
arbitration for guidance.
2.2. The Swedish Arbitration Act
Most SCC arbitrations have their formal seat in Sweden, rendering the Swedish Arbitration
Act is applicable to the proceedings. Section 8 of the Act states that an arbitrator shall be
discharged “if there exists any circumstance which may diminish confidence in the arbitrator’s
impartiality”. In doctrine and jurisprudence, the “impartiality” requirement has been
interpreted to include “independence” as spelled out in the UNCITRAL model law and the
SCC Rules.2
In the proposed revisions to the Act, which may be adopted in 2017, the word
“independence” has been added to Section 8.3
Section 8 of the Act provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may diminish
confidence in an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, including (1) the arbitrator or a
person closely associated with him may “expect benefit or detriment worth attention, as a
result of the outcome of the dispute”, (2) the arbitrator represents a party who may expect such
benefit or detriment, and (3) the arbitrator has taken a position in the dispute.4
Of course,
circumstances other than those enumerated in Section 8 may serve as grounds for disqualifying
an arbitrator. Nonetheless, this provision of the Act guides the SCC Board’s determination of
which situations give rise to “justifiable doubts” under the SCC Rules.
2.3. Jurisprudence
Sweden’s Supreme Court has held that an arbitrator’s impartiality should be assessed
objectively. This means that an arbitrator should be removed if the circumstances would
normally lead to doubts as to impartiality, even if in the case at hand there is no reason to
suspect that the arbitrator is actually partial.5
2
Patrik Schöldström, “The Arbitrators”, in Ulf Franke et al (eds.) International Arbitration in Sweden: A
Practitioner’s Guide (Wolters Kluwer 2013) p. 116.
3
Översyn av lagen om skiljeförfarande (“Review of the Arbitration Act”) SOU 2015:37 p. 176.
Available at
http://www.regeringen.se/49c859/contentassets/78c079328bef401abd6b57f90744e504/oversyn-
av-lagen-om-skiljeforfarande-sou-201537 (in Swedish with a summary in English).
4
The list is illustrative and not exhaustive (Govt. Bill 1998/99:35 p. 218). See, e.g. decision of the
Supreme Court, Case T 156-09 of 9 June 2010, available at
https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/952262/Judgment-of-the-
Supreme-Court-of-Sweden-9-June-2010-Case-No-T-156-09NJA-2010-s-317?pageid=95788.
5
See Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden in case T 2448-06 of 19 November 2007. Available at
http://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/1083436/Judgment-of-the-
Supreme-Court-of-Sweden-19-November-2007-Case-No-T-2448-06NJA-2007-s-481?pageid=95788.
4. 4
The Svea Court of Appeal has held, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, that the decision on
whether to sustain a challenge to an arbitrator should be based on an “overall assessment taking
all relevant circumstances into consideration”.6
In other words, even if one circumstance is not
sufficient to doubt the challenged arbitrator’s impartiality, a number of individually rather
marginal circumstances may lead the decision-maker to a different conclusion.7
2.4. The IBA Guidelines on Challenges to Arbitrators
The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration have gained wide
acceptance within the international arbitration community since their first issuance in 2004.8
Arbitrators commonly rely on the Guidelines when making decisions about prospective
appointments and necessary disclosures, and the Guidelines are frequently cited in challenges.
The SCC Board routinely consult the Guidelines when deciding challenges under the SCC
Rules. Finally, Sweden’s Supreme Court has noted that, while its decisions are based on the
provisions in the Arbitration Act, it may also consider the IBA Guidelines – especially in cases
involving non-Swedish parties.9
The IBA Guidelines provide that “doubts are justifiable when a reasonable third person, having
knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances, would reach the conclusion that there is a
likelihood that the arbitrator may be influenced by factors other than the merits of the case as
presented by the parties in reaching his or her decision.”10
In other words, it is the appearance
of bias — not actual bias — that may trigger dismissal of the arbitrator.11
In order to promote greater consistency, and to avoid unnecessary challenges and arbitrator
withdrawals and removals, the Guidelines list specific situations, relationships and
circumstances and indicate whether disclosure or disqualification is warranted. The situations
are divided into Red, Orange and Green lists. The Red List describes situations in which an
objective conflict of interest exists from the point of view of a reasonable third person having
knowledge of the relevant facts. The Orange List describes situations which in the eyes of the
parties may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.
The Green List describes situations or circumstances where there is no appearance of or actual
conflict of interest from an objective point of view.
The holding regarding objectivity was reaffirmed in Case T 156-09, decision of 9 June 2010, available
at https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/952262/Judgment-of-the-
Supreme-Court-of-Sweden-9-June-2010-Case-No-T-156-09NJA-2010-s-317?pageid=95788.
6
See decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, Case T 10321-06 of 10 December 2008. Available at
https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/952259/Decision-of-the-
Svea-Court-of-Appeal-10-December-2008-Case-No-T-10321-06?pageid=95791. Upheld in the
decision of the Supreme Court, Case T 156-09 of 9 June 2010, available at
https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/952262/Judgment-of-the-
Supreme-Court-of-Sweden-9-June-2010-Case-No-T-156-09NJA-2010-s-317?pageid=95788.
7
Stefan Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande: En kommentar. (“Arbitration: A Commentary”) (Norstedts 2012) p. 421.
8
Available at
http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx.
9
See the decision in the Supreme Court in Case No. T 2484-11 of 10 April 2013. Available at
https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/1973471/Judgment-of-the-
Svea-Court-of-Appeal-10-April-2013-Case-No-T-2484-11?pageid=95791. See also Patrik
Schöldström, “The Arbitrators”, in Ulf Franke et al (eds.) International Arbitration in Sweden: A
Practitioner’s Guide (Wolters Kluwer 2013) p. 117.
10
IBA Guidelines, Explanation to General Standard 2(c), p. 5. See also 2(b), p. 5.
11
See the decision in the Supreme Court in Case No. T 2484-11 of 10 April 2013. Available at
https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/dokument/Court-Decisions/1973471/Judgment-of-the-
Svea-Court-of-Appeal-10-April-2013-Case-No-T-2484-11?pageid=95791.
5. 5
The SCC Board routinely references the Red, Orange and Green lists when assessing whether
a circumstance, relationship or situation invoked as a ground for challenge gives rise to
“justifiable doubts” as stipulated by the SCC Rules.
3. The SCC procedure for challenges to arbitrators
A party who wants to challenge an arbitrator must submit a written statement to the Secretariat
setting forth the reasons for the challenge. The challenge must be filed within 15 days from
when the circumstances giving rise to the challenge became known to the party. Failure by a
party to challenge an arbitrator within the stipulated time period constitutes a waiver of the
right to make the challenge, and the SCC Board will dismiss a challenge on this ground.
When a challenge is filed by a party, the Secretariat gives the other party and the arbitrators
an opportunity to submit comments on the challenge. If the other party agrees to the challenge,
the arbitrator must resign. In all other cases, including in those where the arbitrator offers to
voluntarily step down but one party objects, the Board makes the final decision on the
challenge.
The SCC Secretariat compiles a memorandum for the Board, which includes the grounds for
challenge, the comments submitted by the arbitrator and the other party, and an analysis of the
circumstances based on SCC precedent, legal authorities, the IBA Guidelines. The Board
discusses the challenge at one of its monthly meetings, or electronically in situations where an
urgent decision is needed. Once the SCC Board has made a decision, the parties and the
arbitrators are notified whether the challenge was sustained or dismissed. The SCC currently
does not provide reasons for its decisions, but may begin doing so in the future.
The SCC aims to handle all challenges to arbitrators efficiently, and so as to avoid delaying
the arbitral proceedings. Arbitrators and opposing parties are typically given one week to
comment on the challenge, and the SCC Board usually renders its decision within 4 weeks of
the challenge being filed.
4. SCC Board Decisions 2013-2015
This section includes summaries of all decisions on challenges that the SCC Board made
between January 2013 and December 2015, excluding only decisions made in arbitrations that
are still ongoing.
4.1. Challenge dismissed
4.1.1. SCC arbitration 2012/00212
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by the respondent based on a conversation
between the arbitrator and the respondent’s counsel, overheard by the claimant’s counsel, in
which the arbitrator had questioned the credibility of the claimant’s expert evidence in other
arbitral proceedings related to the dispute. The claimant’s counsel submitted a polygraph test
in support of his witness statement. The claimant subsequently challenged the entire tribunal,
arguing that the respondent’s arbitrator might have influenced the other arbitrators.
The respondent admitted that a conversation had taken place between the respondent’s counsel
and the arbitrator, but that the arbitrator had not made the remark alleged by the claimant’s
12
Nationality of the parties: Pakistani, Norwegian. Nationality of the arbitrators: British, Swedish
(chair). Seat: Stockholm.
6. 6
counsel. Respondent also objected to the admissibility of the polygraph test. The challenged
arbitrator denied having made the alleged remark and stated that the conversation between him
and the respondent’s counsel was merely small talk by the coffee machine. The SCC Board
dismissed the challenge.
4.1.2. SCC arbitration 2012/14813
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by the respondent on the ground that the
arbitrator belonged to the same professional body of public notaries as one of the partners of
the respondent’s counsel, and that the arbitrator had failed to disclose this circumstance
according to Article 14(2) SCC Rules. The respondent opposed the challenge, maintaining that
the information relevant for the challenge had been included in the Request for Arbitration,
and the claimant had waived the right to make the challenge by failing to submit it within the
stipulated 15-day time limit imposed by the SCC rules. Moreover, membership in the same
professional body is included on the Green List of the IBA Guidelines (para 4.3.1), meaning
that there is no appearance of or actual conflict of interest from an objective point of view. The
arbitrator did not comment on the challenge. The SCC Board dismissed the challenge.
4.1.3. SCC arbitration 2013/11214
The claimant submitted a request under Article 16(1)(iii) of the SCC Rules to release a
replacement arbitrator appointed by the respondent during the proceedings. The new arbitrator
had disclosed that he would be unavailable during the previously scheduled hearing dates, and
consented to the appointment subject to the hearing being rescheduled. The claimant opposed
the delay, arguing that making witnesses available for the new dates would cause disruptions
in the claimant’s operations.
Respondent opposed the request on numerous grounds: (1) the claimant had not challenged
the arbitrator on the basis of Article 15 of the SCC Rules; (2) Article 16 can be invoked only
by the SCC Board on its own motion and only in extreme cases; (3) in any event, rescheduling
the hearing did not amount to an unacceptable delay; (4) releasing the arbitrator would likely
cause even further delay. The request for release was dismissed.
4.1.4. SCC arbitration 2013/13415
Upon being appointed, the chairperson disclosed that he had worked for more than 30 years at
the law firm representing the claimant in the arbitration. He had left the firm seven years before
the appointment at issue. Respondent challenged the chairperson on these grounds, adding that
the claimant may have been a client of the firm at the time – meaning that claimant had been
a de facto client of the chairman. The challenged arbitrator commented that he did not recall
claimant being a client of the firm while he was a partner there, and the two lawyers
representing the claimant had joined the law firm after the chairman had left. The chairman
left the law firm representing claimant seven years prior to appointment; under Section 3.1 of
the IBA’s Orange List, the relevant time limit for this circumstance is three years. The SCC
Board rejected the challenge.
13
Nationality of the parties: Russian, German. Nationality of the arbitrators: Russian, German,
Swedish (chair). Seat: Stockholm.
14
Nationality of the Parties: Belgian, Dutch. Nationality of the Arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
15
Nationality of the parties: Swedish. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
7. 7
4.1.5. SCC arbitration 2013/18016
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by the respondent on the basis that the
arbitrator and claimant’s counsel were opposing counsel in another dispute pending in district
court. In that dispute, the claimant’s counsel had objected to the legal fees charged by the
arbitrator in his role as counsel. As the issue of fees concerned the arbitrator in his personal
capacity, the claimant argued that it may undermine his impartiality and independence in the
instant case. Respondent noted that the fees concerned an unrelated dispute between unrelated
parties. There was no connection to the parties in the present arbitration, and the arbitrator had
no economic interest in the present dispute. There were no indications of a personal conflict
between the arbitrator and the claimant’s counsel. The SCC Board dismissed the challenge.
4.1.6. SCC arbitration 2014/10417
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by the respondent on the basis that he had
provided legal advice to the respondent in the past, and that he had an interest in continuing to
receive engagements from respondent. The respondent opposed the challenge, explaining that
the arbitrator had represented respondent in unrelated matters some seven years ago, and has
not been retained by the respondent since then. An engagement this far in the past cannot be
seen to create any financial or commercial dependency, and does not give rise to justifiable
doubts regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality. Paragraph 3.1.1 of the IBA’s Orange List sets
the time limit for this kind of circumstance to three years. The challenged arbitrator confirmed
that his contacts with the respondent had been limited in nature and taken place many years
ago. The SCC Board rejected the challenge.
4.1.7. SCC arbitration 2015/02518
The respondent challenged the arbitrator appointed by the claimant on three grounds: (1) the
arbitrator’s firm was engaged in two transactional projects with claimant’s counsel; (2) the
arbitrator and the chairperson were both included on another arbitral institution’s list of
arbitrators; (3) lawyers working at the arbitrator’s firm had previously worked for the same
firm as claimant’s counsel. The claimant opposed the challenge, explaining that (1) the
arbitrator’s firm and the firm of claimant’s counsel advised opposing parties in the
transactional projects; (2) being included on the same list of recommended arbitrators does not
affect impartiality or independence; (3) the lawyers who had previously been affiliated with
claimant’s counsel do not work in the same office as the arbitrator and have no connection to
the arbitration. The claimant also argued that the challenge was time-barred, as it was not made
within the 15 days as required by the SCC Rules.
The arbitrator declined to resign and commented that (1) she was unaware and not involved in
the joint transactional projects referenced in the challenge, and the fact that the two law firms
represented opposing parties in an unrelated transaction does not affect the arbitrator’s
impartiality; (2) being included on the same list of recommended arbitrators does not indicate
that those listed are connected or even acquainted with each other. The SCC Board dismissed
the challenge.
16
Nationality of the parties: Swedish, Swiss. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
17
Nationality of the parties: Swedish. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
18
Nationality of the parties: Estonian, Kazakh. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish, Kazakh, Swedish
(chair). Seat: Stockholm.
8. 8
4.1.8. SCC arbitration 2015/04119
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by respondent because the claimant’s counsel
and the arbitrator were opposing counsel in an unrelated court proceeding. In that case, a
central issue had been the fees charged by the arbitrator in his role as counsel; the court of
appeal had significantly reduced the fees that he was to be reimbursed. Because claimant’s
counsel had challenged the arbitrator’s compensation in this way, the claimant argued that the
arbitrator’s impartiality may be affected.
The arbitrator explained that the outcome of the court proceeding had no effect on the
compensation he received from his client, and that he suffered no financial loss as a result.
Challenging the attorney’s fees of opposing counsel is within the usual scope of counsel’s role
in court proceedings, and does not affect the arbitrator’s impartiality in an unrelated
proceeding. The SCC board dismissed the challenge.
4.1.9. SCC arbitration 2015/09320
The claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by respondent on the ground that claimant’s
counsel and the arbitrator represented opposing parties in unrelated court proceedings.
Respondent stated that an opposing-counsel relationship in an unrelated case did not diminish
confidence in the arbitrator’s impartiality. The challenged arbitrator clarified that the
relationship between him and claimant’s counsel was collegial and uncontroversial, and that
there was neither friendship nor antagonism between them. The SCC Board rejected the
challenge.
4.2 Challenge sustained
4.2.1. SCC arbitration 2013/13921
The respondent challenged the arbitrator appointed by the claimant based on the arbitrator’s
participation as counsel in another ongoing arbitration involving the respondent, although not
as a party. In that parallel proceeding, the arbitrator advocated against the actions of
respondent, and was likely to face the respondent’s employees in cross-examination. The
claimant and the challenged arbitrator confirmed that the two arbitrations involved some
related issues, and admitted that there was a possibility of some overlap. The SCC Board
sustained the challenge.
4.2.2. SCC arbitration 2013/19222
The respondent challenged the chairperson on the basis that he had served as an expert witness
for claimant’s law firm several times in the past – three times in the past five years – and that
he had received significant fees for these assignments. The last of the assignments had been
so recent that the relationship could be viewed as ongoing. Moreover, claimant argued, the
chairman’s failure to disclose these circumstances when accepting the appointment should be
seen as an aggravating factor. The claimant responded that there was no ongoing consultancy
relationship and no economic dependency between his firm and the chairperson. Because the
chairperson was a former judge, it was unsurprising that he would be engaged as an expert and
consultant by various law firms. The SCC Board sustained the challenge.
19
Nationality of the parties: Swedish, Swiss. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
20
Nationality of the parties: Swedish. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
21
Nationality of the parties: Norwegian, Swedish. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat:
Gothenburg.
22
Nationality of the parties: Swedish, Swiss. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
9. 9
4.2.3. SCC arbitration 2014/16923
The dispute arose out of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). In the dispute, the claimant
investor alleged that the legislative acts and regulatory measures implemented by the
respondent state violated its obligations under the BIT; respondent denied the allegations.
The respondent state challenged the arbitrator appointed by the claimant investor on the
following grounds: The arbitrator acted as counsel for the investor in another investor-state
arbitration, where he advocated a position contrary to respondent’s defense in the present
arbitration. A decision favorable to respondent in this arbitration would be prejudicial to the
interests of the arbitrator’s clients in the other arbitration. Although the two arbitrations were
unrelated, the overlapping issues give the arbitrator a personal and financial stake in this
dispute.
The claimant opposed the challenge, arguing that the respondent’s defenses in this arbitration
were completely different than the defenses advanced in the case where the arbitrator acted as
counsel for the investor. The claimant further maintained that there is no rule preventing
individuals from serving as counsel and as arbitrator in similar but unrelated arbitrations. The
challenged arbitrator commented that his duties as counsel and as arbitrator did not conflict
with each other, as the issues in the arbitration where he acted as counsel were different from
the issues in this arbitration.
The SCC Board sustained the challenge.
4.2.4. SCC arbitration 2015/06424
The respondent challenged the arbitrator appointed by the claimant on the grounds that (1) he
was co-counsel with the claimant’s counsel in another dispute, with the respondent’s counsel
opposing them, and (2) he had received repeated arbitrator appointments from the claimant’s
counsel. The respondent also argued that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose these circumstances
when accepting the appointment was an aggravating factor. Taken together, these
circumstances raised justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality and
independence in the present proceeding.
The claimant opposed the challenge, explaining that claimant’s counsel and the arbitrator
represented different parties, and were not co-counsel, in the referenced dispute. Regarding
the lack of disclosure, claimant stated that the arbitrator’s assignments were known to
respondent’s counsel. The challenged arbitrator confirmed that he was not strictly co-counsel
with claimant’s counsel, and explained that he had been appointed by claimant’s counsel only
twice in the last three years. The arbitrator also stated that he had informed the respondent’s
counsel about his related assignments.
The SCC Board sustained the challenge.
23
Nationality of the parties: Polish, EU state. Nationality of the arbitrators: German, Italian, French
(chair). Seat: Stockholm.
24
Nationality of the parties: Swedish. Nationality of the arbitrators: Swedish. Seat: Stockholm.
10. 10
5. Conclusion
This note has discussed SCC practice on challenges to arbitrators, and summarized decisions
taken by the SCC Board between January 2013 and December 2015. From these decisions,
some general tendencies can be discerned. While these may be indicative of how the Board
would rule on future challenges, each challenge is considered on its own merits and in the
specific context of the arbitration in which it was filed.
When deciding whether a challenge should be sustained – that is, whether circumstances give
rise to justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence – the SCC Board
considers applicable law, jurisprudence, and best practices in international arbitration. The
IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest influence the Board’s analysis, but are not conclusive
in the Board’s decision-making.
Again, it should be noted that it is the appearance of bias that may trigger removal of the
arbitrator; not the existence of actual bias in the dispute at hand. For example, where the
arbitrator’s adjudication of an issue in one case could influence the outcome in a related case
where the arbitrator serves as counsel, this overlap may create the appearance of bias.
During the relevant period, the SCC Board considered several challenges where the party
alleged that the arbitrator was biased because of an opposing-counsel relationship in a separate
but parallel proceeding. This circumstance, on its own, is rarely grounds for justifiable doubts
as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. In a small legal community, such as Stockholm, it is
unsurprising that arbitration lawyers face each other in different settings and different roles.
A challenge will generally not be sustained if it is based on circumstances or relationships that
ceased to exist several years ago. For example, where a relationship between the arbitrator and
a party or counsel ended more than three years before the start of the arbitration, it typically
does not give rise to justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality. The time frames
set out in the IBA Guidelines serve as a reference, but they are not conclusive.
When a party presents several grounds for challenge, the SCC Board will make an overall
assessment, taking all relevant circumstances into consideration. It may be that several
relationships or circumstances, when viewed in combination, are sufficient to sustain a
challenge, even where, seen separately, they would not warrant release of the arbitrator. For
example, if an arbitrator and the claimant’s counsel were both involved in a separate dispute,
but not as co-counsel, and the same arbitrator had received some, but not many, repeat
appointments from claimant’s counsel, the combination of those circumstances may give rise
to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence.
In 2015, the SCC Board also had the opportunity to consider the topic of issue conflict.
Because the question arose in a very specific context involving a complex investor-state issue,
the decision should not be seen to indicate an SCC policy for issue conflicts in general, or even
in the investor-state context. Similarly, the Board’s decision in the challenge based on the
arbitrator’s engagement as expert witness by one of the law firms involved as counsel was
limited to the circumstances of that particular case. It should not be interpreted to mean that
serving as an expert witness for a particular law firm necessarily gives rise to a conflict of
interest in arbitrations involving that firm.
Past decisions rendered by the SCC Board may indicate the Board’s view on various grounds
for challenging an arbitrator. These views, however, should not be seen as definitive. Each
challenge will always be considered on the grounds presented, and in the context of the dispute
in which it was filed.