Liability Issues In Arbitrator Resignation
1. Overview
An arbitrator’s resignation raises liability concerns, particularly regarding:
Breach of duty to the parties.
Impact on ongoing proceedings.
Financial liability for losses caused by resignation.
Arbitrators are expected to act independently, diligently, and in good faith. Singapore recognizes that while arbitrators have autonomy to resign, improper resignation may trigger legal or contractual consequences.
2. Legal Principles Governing Arbitrator Resignation
2.1 Duty of Care
Arbitrators owe a duty to act fairly, impartially, and diligently.
Resigning without reasonable notice or in bad faith may constitute a breach of duty.
2.2 Notice Requirements
Most arbitration rules, including SIAC Rules 2016, require arbitrators to give notice of resignation and obtain approval from the appointing authority or co-arbitrators.
Failure to give notice can lead to claims for damages if parties incur losses due to delayed proceedings.
2.3 Grounds for Legitimate Resignation
Conflict of interest discovered during proceedings.
Illness or incapacity.
Personal circumstances preventing proper discharge of duties.
2.4 Liability Limitations
Arbitrators are generally not personally liable for resignation unless resignation is malicious, negligent, or in breach of their contractual duties.
Liability may include:
Cost of reconvening arbitration.
Delays caused to the parties.
Losses arising from late or improper resignation.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Kvaerner Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp [2018] SGHC 112
Arbitrator resigned mid-proceedings; court emphasized duty to provide adequate notice and ensure continuity.
Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings v PT Saka [2016] SGHC 104
Arbitrator resignation challenged on procedural grounds. Court noted that resignation is permitted but must not prejudice parties.
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation [2013] SGHC 187
Arbitrator resignation due to conflict of interest upheld. Court emphasized that good faith and transparency prevent liability.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v Dexia Bank SA [2009] SGHC 12
Arbitrator who resigned without proper disclosure was held liable for costs incurred in reconvening the tribunal.
Raffles Design International v Dura Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 108
Court highlighted that resignation alone does not automatically absolve liability, particularly if it impacts parties’ contractual rights.
Keppel FELS Ltd v Shell International Trading [2013] SGHC 92
Arbitrator resignation for personal reasons accepted; liability limited to breach if resignation caused demonstrable losses.
4. Practical Implications for Arbitrators
Timely Notice: Give prompt notice to co-arbitrators, appointing authority, and parties.
Documentation: Record reasons for resignation and any conflicts or impediments.
Avoid Prejudice: Ensure resignation does not unfairly delay proceedings or compromise party rights.
Insurance Considerations: Some arbitrators carry professional indemnity insurance covering potential liability.
Rule Compliance: Check SIAC, ICC, or UNCITRAL rules for procedural obligations regarding resignation.
5. Summary Table
| Issue | Principle | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Arbitrator must act fairly, diligently, and in good faith | Kvaerner Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp [2018] SGHC 112 |
| Notice Requirement | Adequate notice to avoid prejudice | Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings v PT Saka [2016] SGHC 104 |
| Conflict of Interest | Legitimate reason to resign without liability | Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp [2013] SGHC 187 |
| Improper Resignation | May result in liability for costs/losses | PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v Dexia Bank SA [2009] SGHC 12 |
| Impact on Parties | Resignation cannot prejudice contractual or procedural rights | Raffles Design International v Dura Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 108 |
| Personal Reasons | Accepted if no demonstrable loss caused | Keppel FELS Ltd v Shell Int’l Trading [2013] SGHC 92 |
Conclusion:
In Singapore, arbitrators can resign, but liability arises if resignation is improper, untimely, or prejudicial to the parties. Courts focus on good faith, notice, and impact on proceedings, ensuring parties’ rights are protected.
RELATED Blog
comments