Source: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/wgd_question/can-the-appointment-of-an-arbitrator-be-challenged-what-are-the-grounds-for-such-challenge-what-is-the-procedure-for-such-challenge/
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 17:06:37
Document Index: 129015201

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 12', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 21']

Can the appointment of an arbitrator be challenged? What are the grounds for such challenge? What is the procedure for such challenge? | The In-House Lawyer
The FAA is silent on challenges to the appointment of arbitrators. Although the Supreme Court has not weighed in, a number of federal appellate courts have precluded any mid-arbitration intervention, including for arbitrator challenges. See In re Sussex, 781 F.3d 1065, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that the district court’s ruling was clearly erroneous as to the legal standard for “evident partiality” and the nature of the equitable concerns sufficient to justify a mid-arbitration intervention and compiling cases). However, some state courts have allowed mid-arbitration intervention where the FAA does not govern. See Metro. Dist. Comm’n v. Connecticut Res. Recovery Auth., 130 Conn. App. 132, 144 (2011) (disqualifying an arbitrator).
Some institutional rules do provide grounds for such a challenge. For example, under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, a party may challenge an arbitrator’s appointment if there are “justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence” and only “for reasons of which [the party] becomes aware after the appointment has been made.” See UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules arts. 11–13. The challenging party must send notice of the challenge within a certain time period and communicate it to the other parties and the entire tribunal. If all parties do not agree to the challenge, or the challenged arbitrator does not withdraw, then the challenging party can ask the appointing authority to rule on the challenge.
As stated in the previous point, a court may challenge the appointment of an arbitrator if there is reason to doubt his or her impartiality.
Moreover, where an arbitrator has participated in the arbitration proceedings despite not having been competent to do so, this will constitute grounds for the repeal of the arbitration award by the court.
The permanent arbitration tribunals also adopt their own additional rules for challenging arbitrator appointments. For instance, the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic outlines a procedure whereby the other arbitrators in the tribunal decide on the impartiality or otherwise of the contested arbitrator.
If the arbitrator does not resign or the parties do not agree to the removal of the arbitrator, the LCIA Court shall issue its decision upon the challenge as set out in Article 10 of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules.
The arbitration institution administering the arbitration or the Court (where there is no arbitral institution appointed) shall decide on the challenge to the arbitrator, unless the arbitrator withdraws, or the other party agrees to the challenge (Regulation 20(2)).
The arbitration shall, however, not be stayed pending the decision of the arbitral institution or the Court (Regulation 20(2)).
‘If an arbitrator becomes as a matter of law or fact unable to perform his function or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay’, his mandate will be termination upon:
his ‘withdraw from his office’; or
Yes. The grounds for challenge of an arbitrator in Singapore are outlined at Art. 12(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which provides that ‘[a]n arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties’. Importantly, Art. 12(2) also provides that ‘[a] party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made’.
Art. 13(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law allows parties to agree on a procedure for challenging arbitrators. In the event that no procedure for arbitrator challenge has been agreed by the parties, however, Art. 13(2) provides that a party, within 15 days of becoming aware of the constitution of the tribunal or of the relevant circumstance under Art. 12(2), shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. In such a case, the arbitral tribunal shall then decide the challenge unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws or the non-challenging party agrees with the challenge.
In the event that a party is unsuccessful in challenging an arbitrator either under rules agreed by the parties or where no such rules have been agreed (as discussed above), Art. 13(3) provides that the unsuccessfully challenging party ‘may request, within thirty days after having received notice of the decision rejecting the challenge, the [High Court in Singapore] to decide on the challenge, which decision shall be subject to no appeal’. Art. 13(3) also states that, ‘while such a request is pending, the arbitral tribunal, including the challenged arbitrator, may continue the arbitral proceedings and make an award’.
The Arbitration Law provides for a mechanism where a challenge on an arbitrator can be raised if there are sufficient grounds and authentic evidence to question the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality. Unlike common law jurisdictions, which have a clearer threshold to test independence and impartiality, in Indonesia, independence is often simply associated with whether or not the arbitrator has a family, financial or employment relationship with any of the parties or their legal counsel.
Any challenge against the appointment of an arbitrator should be raised (a) within 14 days after the appointment or (b) within 14 days after the basis for the challenge becomes known to the party making the challenge.
The challenge should be made in writing and delivered to the relevant arbitrator and the other party. If the other party accepts the challenge, the arbitrator should resign and another arbitrator appointed in their place. If the parties cannot agree on the challenge, and the arbitrator refuses to resign, the challenging party may file an application with the district court to remove the arbitrator.
The appointment of an arbitrator may only be challenged, if circumstances occur which raise justified doubts as to the independence and impartiality of such arbitrator or if he or she does not fulfill the criteria agreed upon by the parties.
In the absence of an agreement between the parties on the procedure for the challenge of an arbitrator’s appointment, the party wishing to challenge his or her appointment has to notify the arbitral tribunal of the reasons for such challenge within four weeks from the date on which it was notified of the composition of the arbitral tribunal or of the reasons for a challenge. If the arbitrator whose appointment is challenged does not resign or if the other party does not agree with such arbitrator’s resignation, the arbitral tribunal (including the challenged arbitrator) decides on the challenge.
If the challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may ask the court to take a decision on the challenge. The subsequent decision of the court is not subject to any appeal.
Article 11 of the Liechtenstein Rules contains supplementary provisions on the challenge of arbitrators.
We note that any objection to jurisdiction must be raised no later than in the party's statement of defence, which implies that the party's participation in the appointment of arbitrators does not prevent it from making a jurisdictional objection. However, if the party's delay is justifiable (eg, the objection was raised immediately after it became aware of the situation), the tribunal may accept the objection even though it is overdue.
According with Art. 21 of the LAM, arbitrators can challenge themselves. The grounds for challenge an arbitrator are the same stated in the COGEP for the judges. Art. 22 of the COGEP provides the following grounds for challenge:
1. To be a party in the process;
2. To be spouse or have a common-law partner with one of the parties or their defenders;
3. To be a relative up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or second of affinity of any of the parties, their legal representative, agent, attorney, defender, or of the judge who issued the challenged ruling;
4. To have ruled in another instance in the same process the issue or another related with it;
5. Unreasonably delay the dispatch of matters submitted to its jurisdiction. If it is the ruling of the matter, the provisions of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function will be followed.
6. Having been a legal representative, agent, attorney, defender, agent of one of the parties in the process currently submitted to its knowledge or intervened as a mediator.
7. To have expressed opinion or advice that is demonstrable, about the process that comes to it knowledge.
8. To have, or had have, he, his spouse, his common-law partner or any of his relatives until the fourth degree of consanguinity or second of affinity a process with any of the parties; when the process has been initiated by one of the parties, it must have been before the instance in which the challenge is attempted.
9. To have received rights, contributions, goods or services from one of the parties;
10. To have any pending obligations with any of the parties or their defenders;
11. To have with one of the parties or their defenders, intimate friendship or manifest enmity;
12. To have a personal interest in the process because it is their business or their spouse or common-law partner, or their relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or second of affinity.
The LAM does not provide for a specific procedure for the challenge, so it is understood that it is governed by the rules of the arbitration center chosen by the parties. What the LAM does provide are the persons who have to resolve the challenge. Art. 21 of the LAM provides that the challenge must be resolved:
a) In the case of a tribunal, it must be resolved by the arbitrators not challenged. If they disagree, the challenge must be resolved by the director of the center;
b) In the case the challenge lies on the tribunal, it must be resolved by the director of the center;
c) In the case of a sole arbitrator, it must be resolved by the director of the center;
d) In the case of an independent tribunal, it must be resolved by the arbitrators not challenged; and,
e) In the case of sole arbitrator or the challenge lies on the tribunal, it must be resolved by the director of the nearest arbitration center to the domicile of the claimant.
Arbitrators appointed by parties’ agreement can only be challenged for unknown reasons at the time of the appointment or supervening at the appointment.
Finally, we must point out that the number of challenges in Ecuador has historically been low, and thus has been maintained today without abrupt increase in challenge cases.
Yes, the parties may request recusal under the following circumstances: The arbitrator lacks the qualifications requested by the parties, the same circumstances for the recusal of a judge under the Code of Civil Procedure also exists for the arbitrator, the arbitrator has had or is currently having an employment or agency relationship with the part(ies)’ representatives or key witnesses, or any other circumstance that would cause the parties to believe the arbitrator cannot independently and impartially perform his or her duties. A party cannot ask for its own nominee arbitrator to be recused unless the circumstances giving rise to the recusal happen or become known to the party after the selection was made. (Article 16 of the AL)
When requesting recusal, for a sole arbitrator, the party shall submit the request to the court. For all other circumstances, the party shall submit a written request to the tribunal within 14 days after becoming aware of the relevant facts, and the tribunal shall decide within 10 days. If the tribunal has not yet been established, the timing on the party’s request shall start to toll after the establishment of the tribunal. A party may petition a court to decide if it wishes to contest the tribunal’s decision, but it may not appeal the court’s decision thereafter.