Read the full judgment text of HCCT 148/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 August 2025 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Challenge to presiding arbitrator’s impartiality — Article 12 and 13 of UNCITRAL Model Law; Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) sections 25, 26 and 46 — Waiver of challenge rights by delay and continued participation — Test for apparent bias as an objective fair-minded and informed observer — Sleeping episodes by arbitrator during hearing — Whether such conduct creates justifiable doubts as to impartiality — Hostility and prejudgment allegations — Whether preliminary robust comments justify removal — Cumulative consideration of arbitrator’s conduct — Setting aside partial final award parasitic on failed challenge — Duty of court to interfere in arbitration only as provided by statute. The arbitration between CNG and G Parties spans over four years with multiple partial awards and enforcement proceedings. CNG challenged the presiding arbitrator alleging bias due to sleeping episodes and hostile conduct. The HKIAC panel dismissed the challenge. The court, on de novo review under Article 13(3), held CNG waived any challenge concerning conduct before 25 June 2024 by continuing participation without timely objection. Regarding the sleeping episodes during two hearing days, the court found these did not create a real possibility of bias for an objective fair-minded and informed observer, given the limited duration and context. The arbitrator’s robust remarks, while sometimes critical, were preliminary views and did not indicate a closed mind or prejudgment. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing legitimate procedural control and preliminary assessments from actual bias. Consequently, the challenge was dismissed with costs. CNG’s application to set aside the 4th Partial Final Award was dismissed as it was contingent on the success of the challenge and lacked causal link demonstrating bias affecting the award. Costs were ordered in favour of respondents. This judgment reaffirms the high threshold for removal of arbitrators for bias, the requirement for prompt objection to procedural irregularities in arbitration, and the restraint of courts in interfering with arbitral proceedings except as expressly authorized.
Legal issues: Waiver of challenge rights · Apparent bias by sleeping arbitrator · Hostility and prejudgment by arbitrator · Setting aside of 4th Partial Final Award (PFA 4)
Outcome: Application to remove the presiding arbitrator dismissed; application to set aside 4th Partial Final Award dismissed
Cites 4 cases