Complaints against arbitrators: some observations

In international commercial arbitration, an arbitrator is expected to possess the qualifications agreed by the parties, have the ability to advance the proceedings in an efficient manner and, in most jurisdictions, be impartial and independent from the parties and their representatives. Correspondingly, many laws and arbitration rules provide remedies to remove arbitrators who fail to fulfil the above requirements. This article describes and illustrates the challenge and complaints procedures available at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and shares the authors’ observations in relation to them.

Procedures for challenges

Arbitrators may be challenged under both the 2008 and the 2013 versions of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. Whereas the 2008 rules expressly refer to “circumstances [which] give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence” as a ground for challenge, the 2013 rules have been amended to include two additional grounds: 1) where the arbitrator “does not possess qualifications agreed by the parties”; and 2) where the arbitrator “becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his or her functions, or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay”. The addition of these new grounds for challenge stems not only from the institution’s past experience, but also reflects parties’ expectations of how proceedings should run.

The authors, Ruth Stackpool-Moore and Guan Zhong, are managing counsel and assistant counsel, respectively, at the HKIAC