Facts and the application
Insurance disputes involving Halliburton and Transocean followed the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The chair in Halliburton’s arbitration against Chubb accepted appointments in other related references without disclosing them to Halliburton. Halliburton sought removal under Arbitration Act 1996 section 24(1)(a). The application concerned removal, not a merits appeal in the insurance dispute.
What required disclosure
In paragraphs 76–80 and 145–147, the Supreme Court connected disclosure with fair and impartial conduct. The disputed appointment in potentially overlapping references with one common party required disclosure. Relevant information included the common participant, the nature of the appointment and the connection between the references; paragraph 146 addresses confidentiality limits. Party appointment does not dispense with impartiality.
Why removal was refused
The Court found a disclosure breach but insufficient grounds for removal. Paragraphs 148–150 address the explanation of oversight, the sequence of references, the expected absence of overlapping evidence and submissions, the absence of a secret financial benefit and the arbitrator’s response to the challenge. On the facts known at the removal hearing, the fair-minded and informed observer would not have found a real possibility of bias. The appeal was dismissed and refusal of removal upheld: paragraph 158.
Two assessment dates
Paragraphs 119–123 and 156–157 distinguish the time at which disclosure became due from the time relevant to deciding removal. Later information may affect the second question without erasing the earlier failure. A disclosure breach therefore does not automatically end the appointment; equally, an unsuccessful challenge does not make disclosure optional.
Statutory development from 2025
Section 2 of the Arbitration Act 2025 inserted section 23A: disclosure applies to a prospective and appointed arbitrator, and awareness includes circumstances of which the individual ought reasonably to be aware. The provision is mandatory. It commenced on 1 August 2025, subject to section 17(4) transition. The 2020 judgment explains the approach’s development; its discussion of actual knowledge does not exhaust the present statutory inquiry.
Limits of the conclusion
The decision concerns English law and particular insurance references. It does not approve all repeat appointments or prescribe Russian challenge deadlines and procedure. A useful comparison separately identifies the facts disclosed, when the applicant learned of them and the remedy available under the law of the seat.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.