Abstrakt

Introduction It is a fundamental principle of arbitration law that each party is entitled to have a fair hearing by an impartial arbitral tribunal1. This right is recognised by art. 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as by s. 33(1)(a) of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “AA 1996”), which provides that “the tribunal shall actfairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent (...)”. Under English law there are several remedies available to a party, which becomes aware of the grounds for doubting arbitrator’s impartiality. One of them is to apply to the court for the arbitrator’s removal, under s. 24(1)(a) of the AA 1996, which provides that a party can make an application to the court to remove an arbitrator in circumstances, which give rise to doubts as to his impartiality. The relevant test to apply under the above mentioned s. 24(1)(a) is the objective test as set out in Porter v. Magill2 that is whether “a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”3.A and others v. B and X In A and others v. B and X4 the dispute between the claimants (A) and the first defendant (B) arose under share sale and purchase agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “SPA”). B commenced arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration alleging breaches of the SPA. The solicitors...