French Court of Cassation, appeal no. 23-10.972, decision dated 19 June 2024
The French Court of Cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeal's decision setting aside an arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal based on doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding arbitrator (Thomas Clay) arising from a eulogy he gave of the lead counsel for one of the parties (Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard), which revealed that they were close personal friends and that the presiding arbitrator consulted the counsel before making any important decision.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 21/08610, decision dated 2 May 2024
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of reasonable doubts as to the independence of the presiding arbitrator (Carole Malinvaud), whose firm (Gide) did work for a major shareholder of one of the parties.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 20/18330, decision dated 10 January 2023
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding arbitrator (Thomas Clay) arising from a eulogy he gave of the lead counsel for one of the parties (Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard), which revealed that they were close personal friends and that the presiding arbitrator consulted the counsel before making any important decision.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 16/09386, decision dated 27 March 2018
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of a reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of one arbitrator, arising from that arbitrator's firm having acted for an affiliate of a party during the arbitration. This was not disclosed. The arbitrator had a continuing duty to disclose, which was breached here. It was irrelevant that the doubt existed only with respect to one of the party-appointed arbitrators, since each member of the tribunal was equally likely to influence the others during the hearing and deliberations.
Our approach
We aim to promote consistency in international arbitration law by providing translations into English of court decisions from major arbitral seats whose working language is not English.
Our translations are completed by professional legal translators and revised by an experienced international arbitration practitioner.
We do not believe in improperly delegating to artificial intelligence or automatic translation. Our content is the product of extensive reflection and effort to produce translations that capture legal nuances. We use technology only in a closely supervised manner.
This work is our own.
Copyright © English for Lawyers Consulting Inc.