LCIA Challenge Decisions 2012-2017
Introduction
On 16 December 2024, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) released its third batch of challenge decisions covering the period from 22 July 2017 to 31 December 2022[1] . The LCIA has also issued a detailed commentary that identifies key legal themes and analytical trends, offering practitioners valuable insight.
This publication is in line with the LCIA’s commitment to transparency and is aimed at promoting the development of legal and procedural norms in the field of international arbitration.
Key Take-Aways
With this set of decisions, the total number of decisions published has increased to 84. For the first time, the LCIA has provided the full texts of the decisions with only limited redactions that were required to ensure confidentiality. This allows for direct review of the submissions made by parties during the challenge process and offers clarity on the LCIA Court’s reasoning in arbitrator challenges. The decisions also illustrate how challenges are resolved with reference to standards such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest and the UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Halliburton v Chubb [2] case on apparent bias.
The decisions reiterate that challenges remain rare and successful challenges are even more exceptional. Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 39 challenges were brought before the LCIA (32 applications submitted under the LCIA Rules and 7 under UNCITRAL Rules), with a very low success rate of only two being upheld. Additionally, in six cases, a formal decision was not required due to arbitrator resignations or the withdrawal of the challenge or underlying claims.
A review of these numbers shows that the success rate of the challenges stands at 3%; and only 0.05% of the total cases (1,864) resulted in successful challenges. The nature of challenges varies but most commonly they are based on dissatisfaction with procedural decisions. The LCIA Court decisions reaffirm that challenges based on procedural decisions are unlikely to succeed. These decisions emphasize that tribunals are vested with broad discretion to manage proceedings (also in line with Article 14.2 of the LCIA Rules, which grant tribunals wide discretion) and that, party dissatisfaction with how this discretion is exercised does not, in itself, give rise to justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. Unless there is compelling evidence of bias or misconduct, the LCIA Court is reluctant to intervene.
Another common ground for challenge relates to alleged connections due to the arbitrator and one of the parties having a direct or indirect connection, which allegedly could undermine the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality.
It is also important to note that the LCIA encourages including decisions related to cost allocation, and the LCIA Court has mostly dealt with this matter.
Notes from Decisions Where the Challenge is Upheld
As stated above, there are only two decisions where the challenge was upheld.
The first successful challenge was made pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2020, against an arbitrator appointed by the respondent[3]. The seat of the arbitration was Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the law governing the contract was Brazilian law.
The challenge was based on circumstances that raised justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality. These included the arbitrator’s prior 20-year employment with the respondent, pending lawsuit against the respondent, collaboration on three ongoing academic projects with one of the respondent’s counsel, participation in events allegedly organized by the respondent, and a failure to disclose some of these connections.
All circumstances taken into consideration (including the longstanding employment and the ongoing lawsuit between them), the LCIA Court upheld the challenge. This decision highlights the LCIA Court’s readiness to sustain challenges in situations where a significant prior relationship may compromise the arbitrator’s impartiality. It is also worth noting that such an appointment would likely not have been allowed under the LCIA Rules.
The second decision that was upheld by the LCIA Court was made pursuant to Article 10.3 of the LCIA Rules 2014, where the respondents challenged both the presiding arbitrator and one of the arbitrators (both selected by the LCIA Court)[4] . The seat of the arbitration was London, England, and the law governing the contract was English law.
The challenge against the presiding arbitrator was based on ties to (i) the country of a party’s controlling shareholder; (ii) a law firm alleged to have advised on relevant contracts and involved in wrongdoing; and (iii) the co-arbitrator, who was also challenged.
The challenge to the other arbitrator related to that arbitrator’s ties to: (i) the Law Firm; and (ii) the presiding arbitrator.
The LCIA Court upheld the challenge on the basis of the presiding arbitrators’ ties to the Law Firm taken into account the following circumstances: he/she previously worked as a consultant for the Law Firm for approximately 8 years, the two firms having a history of co-hosting p events, he/she engaged with lawyers from the Law Firm in some cases, and there were secondments and permanent moves of lawyers between the firms, his/her LinkedIn profile reflects close affiliation with the Law Firm and a similar statement appears on an arbitration website, he/she participated in a regional legal alliance in which the Law Firm was a founding member, he/she been active in professional organizations and committees that facilitated ongoing interaction with lawyers from the Law Firm, the Law Firm referred a case to him/her 15 years ago and he/she previously shared office space with the Law Firm and maintains personal friendships with individuals at the firm.
These overlapping connections served as the basis for the challenge, reinforcing the importance of transparency and perceived impartiality in arbitrator appointments.
The other arbitrator’s links with the Law Firm were also sufficient to uphold the challenge.
The decision also sets out that these conclusions remain valid irrespective of the standard applied in evaluating “justifiable doubts.” Whether one adopts the subjective approach—focusing on the perspective of any party, as reflected in Article 5.5 of the LCIA Rules and General Standard 3(a) of the IBA Guidelines—or the objective test under English law, which considers the view of a fair-minded and informed observer, the outcome is the same.
Notes from Decisions Where the Challenge is Rejected
In related cases it is common for parties to appoint the same arbitrators. However, this one its own, is not a sufficient ground for a challenge and the LCIA Court rejects such challenges[5] .
In Decision 5, the claimant challenged the arbitrator appointed by the respondent under Articles 10.1(iii) and 10.3 of the LCIA Rules 2014. The seat of the arbitration was London, England and the law governing the contract was English law.
The LCIA Court held that the mere fact that the arbitrator had issued a final award in a prior case involving overlapping subject matters was not enough on its own to establish apparent or actual bias. The LCIA Court further notes that a respected and experienced arbitrator, as in this case, is expected to approach each new case independently with an open mind and ensure a fair process. It further emphasizes that as long as procedural fairness is maintained, repeated appointment is not sufficient for disqualification.
The decision also clarifies that irrespective of how Section 2.1.2 of the Waivable Red List and Section 3.1.5 of the Orange List in the IBA Conflicts Guidelines are interpreted, the IBA Guidelines do not take precedence over English law or the LCIA Rules agreed upon by the parties.
In Decision 21, the LCIA Court notes that when parties agree to appoint the same tribunal in related arbitrations, they accept that the tribunal may reach findings in the first case that could be unfavorable to one party. As such, a party cannot later challenge the tribunal’s impartiality on that basis. Moreover, the tribunal’s need to reference prior proceedings for evidentiary or procedural purposes does not, in itself, compromise impartiality.
Another noteworthy decision of the LCIA Court relates to a challenge made by a respondent against one of the arbitrators (nominated by the parties from a list provided by the LCIA) pursuant to Article 10.3 of the LCIA Rules 2014. The seat of the arbitration was New York, United States of America and the law governing the contract was New York law.
The challenge was raised as the arbitrator had a connection with the quantum expert engaged by the claimant. This expert was also acting as an expert under the direction of the arbitrator's own law firm in an unrelated arbitration where the arbitrator was the lead counsel. Given the current circumstances (the arbitrator did not choose or engage the expert in the unrelated arbitration, had not substantially worked with the expert, and the subject matters were different), the LCIA Court rejected the challenge but cautioned that if their working relationship intensified during the arbitration, the outcome may be different.
Conclusion
These decisions are highly valuable for users, counsel and arbitrators, they enhance transparency and provide guidance and important benchmarks to all parties on standards of conduct in future procedures. The LCIA provides valuable insight into the LCIA Court’s reasoning and the evolving standards governing arbitrator challenges.
- Please see: https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-additional-challenge-decisions-online.aspx
- For the full text of the decision, please see: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0100
- Decision 3, rendered on 23 February 2018.
- Decision 19, rendered on 8 December 2020.
- For example, please see Decision 5, rendered on 18 July 2018; Decision 21 rendered on 2 June 2021; and Decision 22, rendered on 2 June 2021.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
International arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving complex cross-border disputes. Yet despite its advantages—neutrality, enforceability, flexibility—arbitration is frequently criticized for being too slow, too expensive, and too procedurally heavy. Often, parties proceed through hearings and...
Emergency arbitration addresses the need for interim protection before the arbitral tribunal is constituted in institutional arbitrations. Arbitral institutions establish short timeframes to ensure parties can obtain interim relief quickly. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) requires that the emergency...
For arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration to produce legal effects in foreign jurisdictions, they must be subjected to proceedings for “recognition” and “enforcement.” This process is governed by the New York Convention as well as by the provisions of the Law on Private International Law...
Arbitrability, the determination of whether a specific subject matter can be resolved through arbitration, constitutes a fundamental aspect of arbitration within the scope of international commercial dispute resolution. This concept draws a delicate balance between party autonomy—a fundamental principle of arbitration...
The recognition, enforcement, and annulment of foreign court and arbitral awards in Türkiye are processes in which public policy emerges as one of the most critical criteria for review, both in theory and in practice. The Court of Cassation decisions determine the direction of case law regarding the scope and...
As is well known, the action for annulment of objection is a special type of lawsuit regulated under Article 67 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”). The primary objective of this action is to nullify a debtor’s objection to execution proceedings. Despite its procedural function of facilitating...
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its report on the dispute resolution statistics for 2023 (“Report”) , shedding light on the evolving landscape of international arbitration...
Syndicated loans undoubtedly hold a significant position among global financing models. In 2023 alone, 3,655 syndicated loans were provided to companies in the US, with their total value reaching USD 2.4 trillion...
Preliminary attachment refers to the temporary seizure of a debtor's assets to secure a creditor's claim. While it serves as a vital instrument for safeguarding the rights of creditors, it is subject to specific and stringent conditions under Turkish law to prevent any potential misuse...
One of the most important reasons for parties to choose arbitration is the opportunity to freely choose their arbitrators. This freedom granted to the parties also distinguishes arbitration from proceedings before state courts, where the parties are deprived of the power to determine the judges who will conduct the...
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on October 12, 2022, that national courts have jurisdiction over objections to provisional measures in international arbitration disputes...
The declaration of intent to resolve disputes through arbitration is the fundamental constituent element of an arbitration agreement. To speak of a valid arbitration agreement, the parties' intention to arbitrate must emerge in a way that leaves no room for dispute...
In the wake of the evolving dynamics of commercial transactions, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute Foundation (NAI) announced new arbitration rules . 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules are in force as of 1 March 2024 and will be applicable on proceedings filed on or after this date...
With the global shift to online activities, domain names play a crucial role in identifying businesses. It is more common than ever for a domain name to be registered that is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark...
The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...
Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.
In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...
Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...
On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...
Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...
In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...
Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...
It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...
Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...
Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...