It is indispensable for the arbitrators to remain intact, unconventional and unbiased throughout the arbitration proceedings. It is inevitable for arbitration institution to frame rules regarding impartiality of the arbitrators and their duties. As said, Article 14 of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) states that “Lack of independence or impartiality” is a ground on which arbitrator’s appointment can be challenged. Similarly, Article 10 of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) states that doubts on arbitrators impartiality is a rationale for challenging his appointment. Article 13 of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre states that “an appointment of an arbitrator may be challenged by either party if there are justifiable doubts towards his impartiality.”
However, there are no standards which has to be followed in order to validate the application submitted for arbitrator’s impartiality. The forgoing institution rules refer to “justifiable doubts” on the basis of which an application can be submitted. Nevertheless, the arbitration institute decide the application for impartiality on merits and the evidences produced before them by the parties.
As said, the Arbitration Lawyers of Dubai & Abu Dhabi, UAE in this article will primarily discuss independence and unbiased behavior of arbitrators’ pursuant to arbitration rules of Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC).In addition, the article will highlights the grounds on which the parties can submit an application for challenging arbitrator’s appointment.

Basis for challenging arbitrator’s appointment

• Any relationship, personal or professional between the arbitrators and the parties can be a reasonable ground for challenging his appointment as it leads to a strong possibility that it may have an impact on the proceedings. However, it is yet possible that the arbitrator indirectly had a relationship or wasn’t entirely independent at the time of commencement of arbitration proceedings, but may be able to issue an impartial decision. Thus, in certain circumstances, impartiality weighs more than independence.

• Arbitrator’s appointment can be challenged if arbitrator is presumed to have a relationship with the legal representative of either party. Ergo, the independence of arbitrator can be challenged considering his relation with the either party’s lawyer.

• In specific cases, arbitrator’s behavior possess a subjective question on his unbiased behavior and can be characterized as a ground for challenging his appointment. The concerned ground is tested on the basis of the facts and atmosphere of the arbitration proceedings.

• If either party is involved in two or more arbitration proceedings, they tend to appoint the same tribunal for convenient and smooth proceedings. Convenience for one party can create inconvenience for the other due to pre-conceived notions and belief that may impair impartial nature of the arbitrator.

Challenging Arbitrator’s appointment under DIAC and ADCCAC Rules

Federal Law Number 6 of 2018 regarding the Arbitration law, regulates the arbitration proceedings within the country, which does not follow UNICTRAL model law. As aforesaid, each arbitration institution has their own rules and regulations pertaining appointment of arbitrators and subsequently challenging their appointment.

Article 9 of DIAC arbitration rules 2007, authorizes the Centre to appoint the arbitrator, unless parties agree in writing for mutual appointment. In addition, Centre is empowered to decline the appointment of such arbitrator, if his impartiality and independence is in question. Accordingly, within next 21 days parties should nominate a replacement for the arbitrator and should fail to do so, the Centre shall appoint the new arbitrator. Further, as mentioned above either party can challenge the appointment of arbitrator pursuant to Article 13 of the Rules on the basis of his impartiality and independence, by submitting an application within 15 days from the date of becoming aware of the situation.

ADCCAC rules under Article 11 allows the parties to object the appointment of arbitrator on a justifiable doubt. It additionally offers another ground for challenging his appointment, if he lacks the requisite qualifications required for the matter. A request for such application shall be submitted within 14 days from the date of becoming aware of the concerned circumstances.

Conclusion

Pertinently, parties prior to submitting the application for challenging arbitrator’s appointment must be clearly aware of the grounds for challenging his appointment. The concerned information can assist both the arbitrators as well as the parties to consider certain points prior to appointing an arbitrator and it can accordingly assist the arbitrators to determine whether to accept the appointment. Consequently, arbitrators will tend to reject the appointment which can be later challenged by either party.