Arbitration Law Monthly

Where arbitrators have ruled that a contract is lawful, it will be difficult to sustain a challenge to the award. The challenge will have to be made on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award, and the definition of public policy in this context is a very narrow one. AJT v AJU [2010] SGHC 201, a decision of Chan Seng Onn J, is an exceptional case in which a public policy challenge was made out.

An arbitrator must act without bias, and an arbitrator’s conduct must not give rise to any suggestion of bias. However, an accusation of this type in an attempt to remove an arbitrator under s24 Arbitration Act 1996 has to be supported by the most cogent evidence. I n Goel v Amega Ltd [2010] EWHC 2454 (TCC) the accusation was by parties who had conducted a protracted course of conduct to prevent the arbitration going ahead. Coulson J rejected their application for the removal of the arbitrator.

In Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2010] EWHC 2455 (TCC) Coulson J ruled that the High Court’s jurisdiction to order pre-trial disclosure of documents does not extend to arbitrations. The decision was one reached by Coulson J with some regret, as the court was of the view that in the circumstances an order would have narrowed the issues between the parties and possibly removed all need for a hearing.

Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT [2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm), a decision of Gloster J, is yet another English authority for the proposition that the English courts should decide any dispute as to the existence or scope of an arbitration clause where the respondent seeks a stay of English proceedings in favour of arbitration.

Under s2(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 the English court can lend its support to an arbitration which does not have a designated seat, as long as there is sufficient connection between the dispute and England. In Chalbury McCouat International Ltd v PG Foils Ltd [2010] EWHC 2050 (TCC) Ramsey J, applying principles established before the enactment of the 1996 Act, held that the fact that the law applicable to the dispute was English law gave rise to that sufficient connection.

Where a series of cargo owners have claims against a carrier under the various bills of lading issued to them, their representative may give a single notice of arbitration to the carrier. Doubtless the intention of such a notice is to trigger as many arbitrations as there are claimants. In Easybiz Investments v Sinograin Chinatex [2010] EWHC 2565 (Comm) the carrier took the point that such a notice, if capable of being construed as requiring a consolidated arbitration, is void. Hamblen J, upholding the view of the arbitrators in a challenge under s67 of the Arbitration Act

Part 62 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the detailed procedures for applications to the court under the Arbitration Act 1996. CPR Part 62 is supplemented by a Practice Direction which amplifies the requirements of Part 62. With effect from 1 October 2010, a new para 12 is substituted in the Practice Direction. Its effect is to provide statutory confirmation of the judicial attitude to the hearing of applications for permission to appeal, namely that the issues at stake have to be concisely presented and capable of resolution within a short time by the judge. There had been a growing tendency for ever-longer applications for permission to appeal, an approach now stamped upon by the court.