The impartiality of an arbitrator is a fundamental requirement in any arbitration proceeding. However, in certain situations, parties may allege a lack of impartiality to attempt to annul an arbitral award. Below, we analyse a recent case addressing this issue.
What is Arbitrator Impartiality?
When an arbitrator is appointed, they must ensure their neutrality and independence. According to Article 17 of the Arbitration Act, impartiality is understood as the absence of any predisposition in favour of one of the parties.
To this end, the law establishes a duty of disclosure, requiring the arbitrator to inform of any circumstances that might compromise their impartiality. Likewise, it imposes on the parties the obligation to report any facts that could affect the arbitrator’s objectivity as soon as they become aware of them.
Case Analysis: Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Murcia (1/2025, 14 February)
In an arbitration administered by a Professional Association, one of the parties filed an action for annulment of the award, alleging that the arbitrator’s impartiality was not guaranteed.
Claimant’s Arguments
The claimant based their claim on an alleged violation of public policy (Article 41.1.f of the Arbitration Act). They argued that neither the Arbitration Court nor the arbitrator disclosed certain personal and professional relationships that could compromise the arbitrator’s impartiality. Specifically, it was contended that the main contractor’s works director was a colleague of the arbitrator within the Professional Association and an administrator of the respondent company.
Respondent’s Defence
The respondent rejected the accusation, asserting that the claimant was already aware of this information before signing the contract, as it was reflected in prior documents and communications exchanged between the parties. Furthermore, they maintained that the Professional Association had duly informed them of the appointment of the expert.
Reasoning of the High Court of Justice
The Court dismissed the annulment claim based on three key points:
1. Lack of Sufficient Evidence
No proof was provided to substantiate the arbitrator’s partiality or lack of disclosure. It was demonstrated that the only relationship between the arbitrator and the works director was their shared professional affiliation, which does not constitute sufficient grounds to challenge impartiality.
2. Failure to Challenge During the Arbitration
The claimant did not raise any objections regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality during the arbitration proceedings.
3. Prior Knowledge of the Facts
The claimant was already aware of the relationship between the arbitrator and the works director before the arbitration. They had even expressly accepted the arbitrator in a communication dated March 2024.
Key Lessons from this Case
This case highlights the importance of parties thoroughly reviewing the suitability of appointed arbitrators in advance and raising any objections at the appropriate time. A party cannot withhold an objection only to later seek to annul an award that is unfavourable to them.
If you require guidance in arbitration proceedings or legal advice in similar disputes, the team at Ayuela Jiménez is ready to assist you. Contact us and safeguard your interests with experts in the field!
