해사 중재상 중재인의 직무 공정성과 공개의무에 관한 분석

An Analysis on the Impartiality of Job and Duty of Disclosure of Arbitrators in Maritime Arbitration: Focused on Focused on Halliburton v. Chubb

The Court unequivocally recognised that maritime arbitration is less likely to give rise to apparent bias where one arbitrator is appointed in multiple related references. As a consequence of the characteristics of maritime contractual chains and disputes, it is in fact a common, accepted and desirable practice, which parties are familiar with, to appoint the same arbitrator in overlapping arbitrations. The Supreme Court also reiterated the importance of the duty of impartiality as a core principle of arbitration law, which applies equally to party-appointed and independently-appointed arbitrators, and the need to apply an “objective observer” test in determining whether circumstances exist that create the appearance of bias. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator in question had breached his duty of disclosure. However, for different reasons than those given in the lower courts, it further held that an objective observer, looking at the facts and circumstances that would have been known to him or her at the time of the hearing of the application to remove the arbitrator, would not have concluded that there was a real possibility of bias. The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment provide critical guidance for arbitrators, practitioners, institutions and arbitration users alike.