Duties and Obligations of the Arbitral Tribunal - Chapter 8 - Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
Peter Ashford is Solicitor of the Supreme Court and a Partner at Cripps Harries Hall LLP and is Head of the firm's Commercial Peter Ashford is a Partner and Head of commercial dispute resolution in the leading United Kingdom Firm of Cripps Harries Hall LLP, Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom. Mr. Ashford advises on a wide range of commercial disputes with a particular emphasis on substantial commercial contract disputes, especially those involving an international aspect, partnership and LLP disputes, professional issues for solicitors and professional negligence. He is particularly experienced in complex, high value claims and acts for many international clients. He handles disputes in court, arbitration, mediation and disputes without any formal process. Mr. Ashford received his training in London and qualified in 1986. He joined Cripps Harries Hall LLP in 1987 and became a partner in 1991.
Originally from Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
Preview page
The duties and obligations of the Arbitral Tribunal are to be found primarily in the arbitration agreement and, by incorporation, in any institutional rules. These will be supplemented by the national laws of the seat and, as applicable, common law principles. The Tribunal will also have to observe ethical standards although these may replicate many of the primary sources.
Several common themes emerge from agreements, rules, and laws.
A. Acting Fairly and Impartially
This duty is a feature of nearly all modern legislation. It is considered to be a feature of the UNCITRAL Model Law (albeit it does not use the words “impartial” or “fair”) because the treatment of the parties “with equality” and that the requirement that “each party shall be given a full opportunity of presenting his case” are considered to be equivalent to principle of impartiality and fairness.
The concept of “fairness” entails fairness to both sides. Principles may conflict. For example, many rules will have an obligation to determine the reference with expedition and yet a party may wish to adduce further submissions, argument, and evidence that may defeat that aim. This may also conflict with a duty to allow a party to fully present its case. Inevitably, a balance must be struck to ensure that the procedure is kept under control.
Perhaps the foremost duty in this connection is that of equality and permitting a party to fully present its case. The equality rule permits both parties to have the same opportunity and this can result in, for example, the refusal of a Reply brief or submission on the basis that it would give one party two submissions and the other only one.