Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v A Tank (1) Moulson Chemplant Ltd (2)
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 1055 Comm, 12 May 2006. Application by N for the removal of T, an arbitrator, and for an order setting aside his decisions. T was appointed under the short procedure arbitration rules of the Institution of Chemical Engineers to resolve a dispute between N and M. N expressed concern about a number of T's actions, in particular his direct contact with witnesses, one of whom N believed was likely to be hostile because of a separate matter. N gave notice to terminate the short procedure. T awarded M's costs against N. N argued that it had suffered substantial injustice, both because there were doubts about T's impartiality, and because his conduct amounted to a serious irregularity. "Held": T's conduct in contacting witnesses directly amounted to a failure to conduct the proceedings properly, such that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. For that reason, his decisions had to be set aside, and T removed as arbitrator. Apart from this, T's decisions and actions did not disclose serious irregularity. The application was granted.Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134373-1001 |
[2006] EWHC 1055 Comm, 12 May 2006. Application by N for the removal of T, an arbitrator, and for an order setting aside his decisions. T was appointed under the short procedure arbitration rules of the Institution of Chemical Engineers to resolve a dispute between N and M. N expressed concern about a number of T's actions, in particular his direct contact with witnesses, one of whom N believed was likely to be hostile because of a separate matter. N gave notice to terminate the short procedure. T awarded M's costs against N. N argued that it had suffered substantial injustice, both because there were doubts about T's impartiality, and because his conduct amounted to a serious irregularity. "Held": T's conduct in contacting witnesses directly amounted to a failure to conduct the proceedings properly, such that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. For that reason, his decisions had to be set aside, and T removed as arbitrator. Apart from this, T's decisions and actions did not disclose serious irregularity. The application was granted.