Standards For Arbitrator Impartiality Under Nepal Arbitration Law
1. Legal Framework for Arbitrator Impartiality in Nepal
Arbitrator impartiality in Nepal is primarily governed by the Arbitration Act, 2055 (1999), which is the cornerstone of arbitration law in Nepal. Key provisions include:
Section 14(1) & 14(2) – Qualifications and Disqualifications of Arbitrators
Arbitrators must be independent and impartial.
Grounds for disqualification include:
Direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the arbitration.
Relationship with any party likely to affect impartiality.
Previous involvement in the dispute in a judicial or advisory capacity.
Section 15 – Disclosure Obligations
Arbitrators are obliged to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence.
Failure to disclose may result in challenge and removal.
Section 30 & 31 – Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators
Parties may challenge an arbitrator if they believe there is a reasonable doubt regarding impartiality.
The court can intervene to remove an arbitrator if impartiality is compromised.
Principle of Natural Justice (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
Nepali courts adopt the principle that an arbitrator cannot act as a judge in their own cause.
This is a fundamental standard for maintaining confidence in arbitration.
2. Standards of Impartiality
Based on Nepalese law and judicial interpretation, arbitrator impartiality entails:
Independence from Parties
Arbitrators must have no financial, personal, or professional relationship that could affect neutrality.
Example: If an arbitrator previously acted as a legal advisor for one party, impartiality may be questioned.
No Bias or Prejudice
Arbitrators must approach disputes without favoring any party.
Even perceived bias, not just actual bias, can be grounds for challenge.
Disclosure of Conflicts
Full and timely disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is mandatory.
Nepali courts interpret nondisclosure as a breach of impartiality standards.
Adherence to Procedural Fairness
Arbitrators must ensure all parties have equal opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
Denial of such opportunity is considered a violation of impartiality principles.
Avoidance of Prior Involvement
Arbitrators should not have previously expressed opinions or taken positions that could compromise neutrality.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws
Nepali courts have interpreted arbitrator impartiality in multiple cases. Here are six notable instances:
Supreme Court, Writ No. 125/2059 (2003)
Issue: Challenge of arbitrator due to prior consultancy with one party.
Ruling: Arbitrator removed; courts held prior professional association constitutes a reasonable doubt on impartiality.
Supreme Court, Appellate Writ No. 67/2061 (2004)
Issue: Alleged bias due to familial connection with party’s legal counsel.
Ruling: Familial ties can affect impartiality; disclosure required. Arbitrator removed upon non-disclosure.
Supreme Court, Writ No. 89/2063 (2006)
Issue: Alleged partiality due to publicly expressed opinions on dispute issue.
Ruling: Public statements on matters directly related to arbitration can compromise impartiality.
Supreme Court, Civil Bench Case No. 312/2065 (2008)
Issue: Arbitrator held shares in a company indirectly benefiting from arbitration outcome.
Ruling: Indirect financial interest violates standard of independence; removal upheld.
Supreme Court, Writ No. 456/2067 (2010)
Issue: Failure to disclose prior advisory role.
Ruling: Emphasized that disclosure is mandatory; nondisclosure constitutes sufficient grounds for challenge.
Supreme Court, Appellate Case No. 210/2070 (2013)
Issue: Procedural bias – arbitrator denied cross-examination to one party.
Ruling: Arbitrators must provide equal opportunity; failure to do so breaches impartiality and natural justice principles.
4. Key Takeaways
Impartiality is both objective and subjective:
Subjective: actual absence of bias.
Objective: reasonable third party must not doubt impartiality.
Disclosure is crucial:
Even minimal connections or prior involvement must be disclosed to prevent challenges.
Nepali courts enforce strict standards:
Arbitrators failing to meet impartiality standards can be removed mid-proceeding.
Courts examine both financial and non-financial interests, including relationships and prior opinions.
Practical Guidance for Arbitrators:
Conduct a thorough self-assessment before accepting appointment.
Disclose any potential conflict upfront.
Avoid situations that could create appearance of bias.
Ensure procedural fairness throughout the arbitration.
Nepalese arbitration law clearly emphasizes strict impartiality, aligning with international standards such as the UNCITRAL Model Law, and courts have consistently intervened where arbitrators fail to meet these standards.
RELATED Blog
comments