Back to Insights- Arbitration
Longer Reads
DOUBLE HATTING: DUTY TO DISCLOSE TIES BETWEEN ARBITRATORS AND EXPERTS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a professional relationship with an expert witness led an ICSID ad hoc committee to issue a unanimous decision to annul a €128 million award against Spain in its entirety, and to order the two claimants to pay the full costs of the proceeding, as well as Spain’s legal fees and expenses.
2 minute read
Published 28 July 2020
Authors
- Visit profile
Craig Deuchrass
Senior Associate
- Read more from Craig
Key information
- Specialisms
- Dispute Resolution
- Services
- Arbitration
Introduction
An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a professional relationship with an expert witness led an ICSID ad hoc committee (the “Annulment Committee”) on 11 June 2020 to issue a unanimous decision to annul a €128 million award against Spain in its entirety, and to order the two claimants, Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg (hereinafter the “Eiser Parties”) to pay the full costs of the proceeding, as well as Spain’s legal fees and expenses.
The historic ruling was made because the arbitrator failed to disclose a longstanding professional relationship with one of the Eiser Parties’ expert witnesses, which, it was found, created a “manifest appearance of bias”. The Annulment Committee’s decision marks the first time in ICSID history that an award has been annulled for improper constitution of the tribunal and for a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure – two grounds for annulment under the ICSID Convention.
Background
The case was based on the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), the energy industry international investment agreement, and was initiated by the Eiser Parties who alleged that regulatory reforms relating to the energy sector implemented by Spain caused them to suffer €256 million in damages.
In May 2017, an ICSID tribunal chaired by Mr John Crook of the US ordered Spain to pay €128 million plus interest after finding that the reforms violated the ECT. The Eiser Parties’ appointee to the tribunal, Dr Stanimir Alexandrov, and Spain’s appointee, Mr Campbell McLachlan QC of New Zealand, joined in the unanimous ruling.
Spain filed for annulment soon after, arguing that Dr Alexandrov had violated his obligation of independence and impartiality by failing to disclose a 15-year relationship with Mr Carlos Lapuerta, of the Brattle Group, who had been retained by the Eiser Parties as an expert on damages in the arbitration.
The Annulment Committee’s decision
In its decision, the Annulment Committee concluded that a tribunal may be held to have been improperly constituted for annulment purposes where an arbitrator lacked independence or impartiality at any time during the arbitration.
The Annulment Committee noted that Dr Alexandrov, whilst a partner at law firm Sidley Austin in Washington DC, had been appointed as arbitrator in four cases in which the Brattle Group had been instructed as experts by the party that appointed him. In two of those cases, Mr Lapuerta was the testifying expert. Three of the cases proceeded at the same time as the Eiser arbitration.
In at least eight other cases, Dr Alexandrov was counsel where the client engaged the Brattle Group as expert. In three of those cases, Mr Lapuerta was the testifying expert.
The Annulment Committee stated that this relationship should have been disclosed, and that Dr Alexandrov’s absence of disclosure deprived Spain of the opportunity to challenge him in the arbitration proceedings.
In doing so, the Annulment Committee found support for its decision in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration:
“The ongoing obligation to disclose cannot be construed narrowly in favor of the arbitrator. It must be approached from the point of view of a party. Disclosure inoculates arbitrators from the possibility of any, real or perceived, conflict of interest. As the IBA Guidelines state, “[a]ny doubt as to whether an arbitrator should disclose certain facts or circumstances should be resolved in favour of disclosure.” There are multiple ways in which a conflict of interest may arise when an arbitrator also acts or has acted as counsel, in another dispute, albeit between different parties. The risks and possibilities of conflict of interest, inherent in double-hatting, dictate caution.” (Annulment decision paragraph 223).
Conclusion
The Annulment Committee’s decision turned on the fact that this situation involved an arbitrator sitting in adjudication of an expert’s work in one matter while simultaneously, as counsel, advocating for the same expert’s analysis in another. In the future, there will be less scope for members of ICSID tribunals to have co-existing professional relationships with parties or experts involved in the arbitration.
The high bar set by the Annulment Committee will, in turn, demand that tribunal members engage in a more rigorous and comprehensive disclosure process, making more information on potential conflicts of interest available; that is, any information that may risk a decision potentially becoming annulled.
Related latest updates
PREV
NEXT
Longer Reads
Read more
Nix Of $11B Award Shows Limits Of Arbitral Process
Longer Reads
Read more
English court dismisses section 68 challenge to calculation of ICC award
Longer Reads
Read more
What EU Oil Spill Insurance Ruling Means For UK Arbitration
Shorter Reads
Read more
Lawyers welcome plans to boost arbitration laws to secure London’s status as leading disputes hub
Longer Reads
Read more
Remote arbitration hearings
Shorter Reads
Read more
English Court confirms it has no jurisdiction to permit a counterclaim in enforcement proceedings
Longer Reads
Read more
Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse – bribery claims proceed by way of arbitration
Longer Reads
Read more
Arbitration and Foreign Governments: Peers debate transparency vs. confidentiality
Shorter Reads
Read more
ENGLISH HIGH COURT STAYS COURT PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATIONShorter Reads
Read more
Arbitration clauses in ISDA master agreements
Longer Reads
Read more
Uk Supreme Court Rules On Apparent Bias Of Arbitrators
Longer Reads
Read more
Taking evidence in international arbitration – IBA rules versus the Italian and English legal systemsLonger Reads
Read more
New LCIA Arbitration Rules: In force on 1 October 2020
Longer Reads
Read more
The 2019 LCIA Casework Report: Record Number of New Cases
Related content
Longer Reads
DOUBLE HATTING: DUTY TO DISCLOSE TIES BETWEEN ARBITRATORS AND EXPERTS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a professional relationship with an expert witness led an ICSID ad hoc committee to issue a unanimous decision to annul a €128 million award against Spain in its entirety, and to order the two claimants to pay the full costs of the proceeding, as well as Spain’s legal fees and expenses.
Published 28 July 2020
Associated sectors / services
Authors
Introduction
An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a professional relationship with an expert witness led an ICSID ad hoc committee (the “Annulment Committee”) on 11 June 2020 to issue a unanimous decision to annul a €128 million award against Spain in its entirety, and to order the two claimants, Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg (hereinafter the “Eiser Parties”) to pay the full costs of the proceeding, as well as Spain’s legal fees and expenses.
The historic ruling was made because the arbitrator failed to disclose a longstanding professional relationship with one of the Eiser Parties’ expert witnesses, which, it was found, created a “manifest appearance of bias”. The Annulment Committee’s decision marks the first time in ICSID history that an award has been annulled for improper constitution of the tribunal and for a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure – two grounds for annulment under the ICSID Convention.
Background
The case was based on the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), the energy industry international investment agreement, and was initiated by the Eiser Parties who alleged that regulatory reforms relating to the energy sector implemented by Spain caused them to suffer €256 million in damages.
In May 2017, an ICSID tribunal chaired by Mr John Crook of the US ordered Spain to pay €128 million plus interest after finding that the reforms violated the ECT. The Eiser Parties’ appointee to the tribunal, Dr Stanimir Alexandrov, and Spain’s appointee, Mr Campbell McLachlan QC of New Zealand, joined in the unanimous ruling.
Spain filed for annulment soon after, arguing that Dr Alexandrov had violated his obligation of independence and impartiality by failing to disclose a 15-year relationship with Mr Carlos Lapuerta, of the Brattle Group, who had been retained by the Eiser Parties as an expert on damages in the arbitration.
The Annulment Committee’s decision
In its decision, the Annulment Committee concluded that a tribunal may be held to have been improperly constituted for annulment purposes where an arbitrator lacked independence or impartiality at any time during the arbitration.
The Annulment Committee noted that Dr Alexandrov, whilst a partner at law firm Sidley Austin in Washington DC, had been appointed as arbitrator in four cases in which the Brattle Group had been instructed as experts by the party that appointed him. In two of those cases, Mr Lapuerta was the testifying expert. Three of the cases proceeded at the same time as the Eiser arbitration.
In at least eight other cases, Dr Alexandrov was counsel where the client engaged the Brattle Group as expert. In three of those cases, Mr Lapuerta was the testifying expert.
The Annulment Committee stated that this relationship should have been disclosed, and that Dr Alexandrov’s absence of disclosure deprived Spain of the opportunity to challenge him in the arbitration proceedings.
In doing so, the Annulment Committee found support for its decision in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration:
“The ongoing obligation to disclose cannot be construed narrowly in favor of the arbitrator. It must be approached from the point of view of a party. Disclosure inoculates arbitrators from the possibility of any, real or perceived, conflict of interest. As the IBA Guidelines state, “[a]ny doubt as to whether an arbitrator should disclose certain facts or circumstances should be resolved in favour of disclosure.” There are multiple ways in which a conflict of interest may arise when an arbitrator also acts or has acted as counsel, in another dispute, albeit between different parties. The risks and possibilities of conflict of interest, inherent in double-hatting, dictate caution.” (Annulment decision paragraph 223).
Conclusion
The Annulment Committee’s decision turned on the fact that this situation involved an arbitrator sitting in adjudication of an expert’s work in one matter while simultaneously, as counsel, advocating for the same expert’s analysis in another. In the future, there will be less scope for members of ICSID tribunals to have co-existing professional relationships with parties or experts involved in the arbitration.
The high bar set by the Annulment Committee will, in turn, demand that tribunal members engage in a more rigorous and comprehensive disclosure process, making more information on potential conflicts of interest available; that is, any information that may risk a decision potentially becoming annulled.
Associated sectors / services
- Arbitration
Authors
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributor
Craig
DeuchrassSenior Associate
Specialising in Commercial disputes, Banking & financial disputes and Commercial arbitration
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesMessage us on WhatsApp (calling not available)
Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close
