AIFC: professional connections and an arbitrator challenge

A challenge in the separate AIFC framework

In AIFC-C/CFI/2026/0029, the AIFC Court of First Instance considered an application under Article 22 of the AIFC Arbitration Regulations 2017. The published judgment identifies the parties as Claimant and Defendant. The challenge relied on academic affiliations of the arbitrator and opposing counsel, professional contacts and three procedural rulings. This was judicial supervision within the separate AIFC framework, rather than a Kazakhstan Supreme Court decision under Law 488-V.

The test and the role of the IBA Guidelines

The court admitted further university website material concerning three members of opposing counsel’s team. Admission determined what evidence could be considered; it did not establish the alleged conflict. After admission, the claimant still had to prove the essential facts on which the challenge relied.

In paragraphs 14–23, the court applied the test of justifiable doubts about impartiality or independence, viewed from the standpoint of a fair-minded and informed observer. It used the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest as guidance without treating them as binding law. The nature of each connection and their cumulative effect were examined. General suspicions of acquaintance did not substitute for evidence of specific interaction or dependence.

University affiliations, conferences and procedural rulings

Paragraphs 44–59 address academic and professional overlap. Actual interaction between the arbitrator and counsel through the university was not proved. Speaking at different events within a conference, sharing membership of a professional panel and having the same nationality as counsel did not in this case create a justified risk of bias. The court found no duty to disclose the circumstances examined.

In paragraphs 66–71, the court separately examined complaints about case management. No witness statements had been supplied for the claimant’s proposed witnesses to establish relevance, while the circumstances of the other party’s witnesses differed. Rejection of an additional submission outside the timetable did not establish bias either. The jurisdiction challenge was a separate issue; a possible jurisdictional error was not equated with partiality.

Disposition

On 29 July 2026, the court admitted additional documentary evidence but dismissed the arbitrator challenge. Costs were reserved for further written submissions and a separate decision. The conclusion concerns the particular relationships and objections established in evidence; conflict analysis requires examination of the actual relationships and the applicable law and rules.