header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A big fish in a small pond?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
05 September 2025 / Akshay Misra , Bronagh Adams
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Bias , Jurisdiction
printer mail-detail
228903
Akshay Misra & Bronagh Adams on how a recent judgment provides a robust endorsement of the work of the LMAA
  • The Commercial Court has confirmed that repeat appointments in LMAA arbitrations do not automatically imply bias.

The English Commercial Court in V and another; K v V and another [2025] EWHC 1523 (Comm) has confirmed the high threshold required to challenge arbitral awards on grounds of apparent bias and jurisdictional error. The judgment underscores the robustness of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) framework and highlights the importance of context in the approach to arbitrators’ duties of disclosure. The decision also provides further clarity on the application of the principles established in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48.

Background

The seller, K, terminated a memorandum of agreement for the sale of a vessel after US sanctions were imposed on the buyer, V, by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. V had nominated a related party to take delivery of the vessel. Both V and its nominee (the claimants) challenged

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll