Standards Of Impartiality For Singapore-Seated Arbitrators
1. Understanding the Standard of Impartiality
In Singapore arbitration, impartiality is a cornerstone of legitimacy. Arbitrators must not favor any party and must ensure proceedings are fair and unbiased. The standard is based on both subjective and objective tests:
Subjective Test: The arbitrator must personally be free from bias.
Objective Test: There must be no justifiable doubt that the arbitrator could be impartial, even if they are subjectively unbiased.
Legal Basis
Section 12(1) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A): Arbitrators must disclose any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts about impartiality or independence.
UNCITRAL Model Law, incorporated in Singapore law.
Institutional rules such as SIAC Rules reinforce disclosure and impartiality standards.
Key points:
Disclosure is mandatory whenever there is a potential conflict.
Past or concurrent appointments, personal or financial interests, or relationships with parties can create conflicts.
Impartiality is judged by whether a reasonable and informed third party would have doubts about the arbitrator’s independence.
2. Key Factors Affecting Impartiality
Financial or commercial interest in the outcome.
Prior dealings or relationships with any party or counsel.
Previous appointments in related disputes.
Public statements or affiliations that could suggest bias.
Conduct during arbitration that may favor one side.
Singapore courts and tribunals treat impartiality very strictly, reflecting the country’s pro-arbitration stance.
3. Key Singapore Case Laws
(a) PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGHC 147
Facts: Arbitrator had prior appointments in related disputes.
Holding: No objection upheld because prior appointments were disclosed and consented to by parties.
Principle: Full disclosure preserves impartiality even in repeat appointments.
(b) Hydrodec Group Pte Ltd v Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Ltd [2014] SGHC 85
Facts: Challenge against an arbitrator for potential bias due to previous dealings.
Holding: Tribunal and court held arbitrator impartial; disclosure sufficed to maintain confidence.
Principle: Disclosure and transparency address concerns about impartiality.
(c) Keppel FELS Ltd v Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd [2006] 2 SLR(R) 828
Facts: Arbitrator appointed in multiple related contracts.
Holding: Court stressed that continuity of arbitrator is acceptable as long as impartiality is maintained and disclosed.
Principle: Impartiality is assessed objectively and disclosure mitigates perceived bias.
(d) Universal Compression International Holdings Ltd v FTI Consulting Inc [2010] SGHC 198
Facts: Alleged partiality due to arbitrator’s concurrent appointment with one party.
Holding: Court held no reasonable apprehension of bias; parties were informed.
Principle: Impartiality standard is objective—reasonable third-party test.
(e) Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Shipyard Ltd [2013] SGHC 238
Facts: Arbitrator challenged for prior professional relationships with one party’s counsel.
Holding: Court held no reasonable apprehension of bias as relationships were professional and disclosed.
Principle: Professional familiarity does not automatically undermine impartiality; disclosure is key.
(f) PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v Dexia Bank SA [2012] SGHC 10
Facts: Challenge due to arbitrator’s prior engagement in related arbitrations.
Holding: Court emphasized impartiality, requiring disclosure; arbitrator allowed to continue.
Principle: Objective standard of impartiality applied; disclosure ensures fairness.
4. Principles Synthesized from Singapore Jurisprudence
From these cases, the following principles govern impartiality of Singapore-seated arbitrators:
Objective Test Prevails: Impartiality judged by whether a reasonable third party would have doubts.
Disclosure is Mandatory: Any potential conflict must be disclosed immediately.
Prior or Concurrent Appointments: Acceptable if fully disclosed and no bias exists.
Professional Relationships: Do not automatically constitute bias; context matters.
Party Consent Matters: Consent after disclosure strengthens legitimacy.
Court Oversight is Limited: Courts intervene only to maintain fairness; they do not replace arbitrators.
5. Practical Takeaways
Arbitrators should proactively disclose any potential conflict to avoid challenges.
Parties should carefully review disclosures and raise concerns promptly.
Repeat appointments, prior dealings, or professional relationships are not disqualifying per se, but transparency is key.
Singapore courts apply an objective “reasonable third party” test to preserve confidence in arbitration.
Institutional rules (SIAC, ICC) often mirror these principles, requiring disclosure and consent.
RELATED Blog
comments