(...) from deliberations and issuance of arbitral award (Spanish Supreme Court)

(...) from deliberations and issuance of arbitral award (Spanish Supreme Court)
In a unanimous decision dated 15 February 2017, the Spanish Supreme Court ordered two arbitrators to pay one of the parties in the arbitration, Puma, EUR750,000 each (the amount paid to them by Puma as fees in the arbitration) for having acted recklessly by issuing a final award, excluding Puma's appointed arbitrator from their deliberations.
Every jurisdiction recognises to a greater or lesser extent the immunity of arbitrators because they consider the arbitral function to be of a jurisdictional nature. However, the degree of arbitral immunity varies between common law and civil law jurisdictions. The former recognises almost complete immunity to arbitrators. However, the latter limits the immunity of arbitrators depending on the seriousness of the misconduct.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court, in making this judgment, did so on the basis of the facts established as true in the first instance and in the appeal. If, as proved in the lower courts, the excluded arbitrator did not attempt in any way to obstruct the normal course of the arbitration proceedings, the behaviour of the remaining two arbitrator defendants satisfied the standard of recklessness provided for in Article 21.1 of the Spanish Arbitration Law. (Judgment number 102/2017 of February 15, 2017.)
Practical Law UK, 01-Mar-2017.
Indicate your preferences to receive email alerts on specific areas of interest
Let us know your interests and how often you wish to receive our legal alerts:
Choose areas of interestWe use our own cookies and third-party analytics technologies to identify your browsing habits and be able to offer our contents based on your interests, while improving your security. For more information, select "more information" to access our Cookies policy to enable or disable cookies at any time.
More information