Facts
A construction dispute concerned the consequences of an increase in minimum wages. The presiding arbitrator had sat in two related references sharing one party but involving different claimants and co-arbitrators. At least 212 of the new award’s 451 paragraphs were copied from those earlier awards. Material contractual terms and the seats of arbitration differed.
The issue before the court
The inquiry concerned how the reasoning was produced and whether the process was fair, rather than a recalculation of construction claims. Access to the parallel-case material was unequal, and its use affected the opportunity to present a case and the impartial determination of this particular dispute. Related subject matter did not permit undisclosed importation of other proceedings’ arguments and conclusions.
Reasoning and disposition
In paragraphs 40–63 and 68–89, the Court examined the borrowing, differences between the cases, unequal access and consequences for natural justice. A finding of bad faith by the arbitrator was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed: setting aside of the entire award under International Arbitration Act section 24(b) was upheld. The Court did not replace the award with its own decision on the contractual merits.
Limits and comparison
The judgment creates no automatic annulment rule for matching wording and makes no finding about AI use. The particular material, its use and the breach of procedural safeguards mattered. Halliburton separates disclosure from removal; CAJ v CAI addresses the opportunity to meet a late factual case. These decisions help distinguish tribunal independence from fairness in the particular proceedings.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.