The applicants sought to remove the sole arbitrator in a complex construction arbitration, alleging his extensive questioning of witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the application under the Arbitration Act, 1991, and that the application was not out of time.
However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the arbitrator's interventions were a legitimate exercise of his truth-seeking function and subject matter expertise, and did not demonstrate bias or pre-judgment.
