Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Impartiality of the arbitrator
Practical Law Legal Update 3-422-4839 (Approx. 2 pages)
Impartiality of the arbitrator
| Published on 03 Sep 2009 • International, Russian Federation |
Maxim Kulkov (Partner), Goltsblat BLP
In Erick van Egeraat Associated Architects B.V.(Netherlands) v Capital Croup LLC (Russia), No V 087/2006, the Court of Cassation of the Moscow Federal Circuit rejected claims that an arbitrator was biased as a result of having spoken at the same conference as the counsel representing the winning claimant. The claim of bias was not established on the evidence and in any event had been raised too late.
On 20 August 2009, the Court of Cassation of the Moscow Federal Circuit upheld the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court on recognition and enforcement of the SCC award in Erick van Egeraat Associated Architects B.V.(Netherlands) v Capital Croup LLC (Russia), No V 087/2006
The defendant raised several issues to challenge the recognition of the award. The most noteworthy was its argument that one of the arbitrators lacked impartiality because she had spoken at the same conference as the counsel representing the winning claimant. Moreover, the name of the law firm where the claimant's counsel used to work had appeared in the marketing materials of the conference as its sponsor.
Contrary to the ruling of the RF Supreme Arbitration Court in Yuganskneftegas v Yukos Capital (10 December 2007 No 14956/07) in which the court held, in similar circumstances, that the arbitrator could be considered biased, this time the court rejected the defendant’s argument. The reasons for the rejection were:
- First, the defendant had never before challenged the arbitrator's impartiality, even though the conference in question took place in 2005.
- Secondly, the law firm representing the claimant had not taken part in organization or financing of the conference but acted merely as a so called "information sponsor".