V & Anor v K [2025] EWHC 1523 (Comm)

Marcus Mander and James Bailey acted for the successful Defendant in an arbitration claim brought under sections 68(2)(a) and 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The claim concerned six allegations of apparent bias in the context of an LMAA arbitration.

The decision contributes to the growing body of recent authority on whether arbitrators must disclose prior appointments by the parties and/or their legal representatives (see Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2021] AC 1083 and Aiteo v Shell [2024] EWHC 1993 (Comm)).

The Claimants’ central allegation was that the Defendant’s party-appointed arbitrator had failed to disclose (or had inadequately disclosed) prior arbitral appointments by the Defendant’s solicitors. Calver J held that the Defendant’s party-appointed arbitrator had not been obliged to disclose such previous appointments, relying in particular on the custom and practice of the London maritime market by which arbitrators can take on multiple appointments without disclosure ([106]-[119]). Additionally, there had been no lack of candour on the part of the Defendant’s party-appointed arbitrator in his responses to the Claimants’ requests for disclosure ([64]-[105]). The fair-minded observer would not have concluded there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the Defendant’s party appointed arbitrator, who had a well-established reputation for integrity and wide experience in maritime arbitration, and had been transparently fair in the arbitration ([137]-[152]).

As for the Claimants’ five other allegations of apparent bias relating to the Tribunal’s conduct of the arbitration (which the Claimants ultimately abandoned at the hearing), Calver J observed that these allegations had been purely tactical, had no merit whatsoever and should never have been made ([47]). The tribunal had behaved with nothing but impeccable fairness ([19]).

Finally, Calver J held that service of the claim form had, in any event, been invalid, because the Defendant’s instructing solicitors had not agreed to accept service by email. Calver J refused to retrospectively validate service pursuant to CPR 6.15(2) or CPR 3.9 ([172]-[176]), noting that the facts were strikingly similar to those in the UKSC decision of Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119 ([169]).

Marcus Mander and James Bailey appeared for the successful Defendant, instructed by Reed Smith LLP (Charles Weller, Thor Maalouf and Monty Birley).