LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ARBITRATION LAW – Misconduct of Arbitrator – Allegations of Bias and Standard of Proof
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There must be grounds for supposing bias; materials before the court must be such that could debar the arbitrator from acting; to hold otherwise would open a wide door for all sorts of attempts to get rid of arbitrators deliberately chosen by parties to contracts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"In this appeal, there is no ground for supposing that the Arbitrator was anti-Lagos State Government or at war with it. Assuming that the Lagos State Government was the appellant in this case, the materials before the court were not such that could debar the arbitrator from acting as such in this case. To hold otherwise would open a wide door for all sorts of attempts to get rid of arbitrators deliberately chosen by parties to contracts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Bias allegations against arbitrators require substantial proof. Courts assess: (1) Whether grounds exist for supposing bias—actual evidence suggesting partiality, not mere speculation; (2) Whether materials before court could debar the arbitrator—whether a reasonable person would conclude bias exists; (3) Policy considerations—preventing parties from manipulating bias allegations to remove arbitrators they selected. The standard is high because: parties chose this arbitrator (through agreement or appointment mechanism), arbitrators shouldn’t be removed on flimsy grounds, and allowing easy removal would undermine arbitration. Types of bias include: financial interest in outcome, relationship with one party, prejudgment of issues, or animosity toward a party. However, mere adverse decisions don’t prove bias. The principle protects arbitration’s integrity by: preventing strategic bias allegations, maintaining parties’ arbitrator choices, and requiring concrete evidence of actual bias before disqualification. Courts scrutinize bias claims carefully to prevent abuse while removing genuinely biased arbitrators.