- Application for removal of arbitrator dismissed, with judgment published in full (Newcastle United Football Company v The Football Association Premier League)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- AA 1996, s 24 removal applications
- Confidentiality applications
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Section 24 removal application
- Confidentiality issues
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court rejected an application to remove an arbitrator under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), determined that the hearing of that application should be in private, but found that the judgment should be published in full. This case, in which two judgments were issued by the judge, is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it grapples as a practical matter with the interplay between grounds for ‘apparent bias’ and the duty of disclosure, recently developed by the Supreme Court in Halliburton v Chubb. It demonstrates the difficulties of relying on breach of the duty to disclosure to ground ‘apparent bias’ where the underlying circumstances, which it is said should have been disclosed, do not ground an ‘apparent bias’ objection. Second, it addresses the circumstances in which a hearing in court-related arbitration proceedings should be in public, and where a resulting judgment should be published in full. Written by Angeline Welsh, barrister at Essex Court Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial