The mandate (authority) of an arbitrator may be terminated before the award is made through challenge (S.13), inability to act or failure to act (S.14), or withdrawal/agreement (S.15). Additionally, the mandate terminates automatically upon expiry of the time limit under S.29A without extension.
Why: An arbitrator must remain independent, impartial, and capable throughout the proceedings. If these conditions fail, the integrity of the process requires removal and substitution to ensure a fair outcome.
Legal Framework
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| S.13 | Challenge procedure |
| S.14 | Failure or impossibility to act |
| S.15 | Termination of mandate and substitution |
| S.29A(4) | Mandate terminates if award not made within time limit |
| S.12(3) | Grounds for challenge: justifiable doubts as to independence/impartiality; lack of agreed qualifications |
Grounds for Termination
| Ground | Section | Nature |
|---|
Grounds for Termination
| Ground | Section | Nature | Illustrated Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successful challenge (lack of independence/impartiality) | S.13 | Adversarial (one party challenges) | Midway through proceedings, the respondent discovers that the arbitrator's law firm (where he was a senior partner until last year) is currently advising the claimant on a related matter. Respondent challenges under S.13. Challenge sustained. Mandate terminates. |
| Failure to act without undue delay | S.14(1)(a) | De jure or de facto inability | The arbitrator schedules a hearing for March, postpones to June, then September, then December, citing "busy schedule." One year passes with no hearing conducted. A party applies to court under S.14(2): "The arbitrator has failed to act without undue delay." Court terminates the mandate. |
| Impossibility to perform functions | S.14(1)(a) | Physical, legal, or mental incapacity | The sole arbitrator suffers a stroke and is hospitalised for 6 months with no prognosis for recovery. He is physically unable to conduct hearings, read documents, or write an award. De facto inability. Mandate terminates. |
| Withdrawal from office | S.14(1)(b) read with S.15(1) | Voluntary | The arbitrator writes to both parties: "Due to a conflict of interest I was unaware of at the time of appointment, I hereby withdraw from this arbitration." Mandate terminates. No inference of any ground is drawn against the arbitrator (S.14(3)). |
| Agreement of parties | S.14(1)(b) read with S.15(1) | Consensual | Both the claimant and respondent realise the arbitrator lacks technical knowledge needed for their complex IT dispute. They jointly write to the arbitrator: "We mutually agree to terminate your mandate and appoint a new arbitrator with IT expertise." Mandate terminates by agreement. |
| Expiry of mandate (time limit) | S.29A(4) | Automatic (unless extended) | Pleadings completed on 1 Jan 2024. Deadline for award: 31 Dec 2024 (12 months). Parties consent to extension: 30 June 2025 (18 months). No court extension obtained. On 1 July 2025, the mandate terminates AUTOMATICALLY by operation of law. Any award made after this date is without jurisdiction. |
Challenge Procedure (S.13)
| Step | Provision | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Parties agree on challenge procedure | S.13(1) | Parties may agree on any procedure |
| 2. Default: written statement to tribunal | S.13(2) | Within 15 days of becoming aware of constitution or grounds |
| 3. Arbitrator may withdraw | S.13(3) | Challenged arbitrator may voluntarily withdraw |
| 4. If challenge not sustained by tribunal | S.13(4) | Tribunal continues; challenge can be raised later in S.34 application |
| 5. If challenge sustained | S.13(5) | Arbitrator's mandate terminates; substitute appointed under S.15 |
| 6. Court application (if tribunal rejects) | S.13(6) (pre-2015) | Party could apply to court. Post-2015: challenge raised only at S.34 stage |
Why: The tribunal itself decides challenges to maintain minimal court intervention. The losing party on challenge can raise the issue later when the award is challenged under S.34.
Failure or Impossibility to Act (S.14)
| Situation | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform | Mandate terminates (S.14(1)(a)) |
| Fails to act without undue delay | Party may apply to court for termination (S.14(2)) |
| Withdraws from office | Mandate terminates (S.14(1)(b)) |
| Parties agree to terminate | Mandate terminates (S.14(1)(b)) |
| Dispute on termination | Court decides under S.14(2) |
Substitution (S.15)
| Situation | Procedure |
|---|---|
| Mandate terminates (any ground) | Substitute arbitrator appointed following same procedure as original |
| Challenge succeeds | S.15(2): Substitute appointed per original procedure |
| Withdrawal or party agreement | S.15(2): Same |
| Effect on proceedings | S.15(3): Unless parties agree otherwise, previous hearings may not be repeated; substitute may base decision on existing record |
| New hearing | S.15(4): Substitute may order fresh hearing on specific matters if necessary |
Recall Check
- What is the time limit for filing a challenge under S.13(2)?
- Name three grounds on which an arbitrator's mandate can be terminated.
- If the tribunal rejects a challenge, what recourse does the challenging party have?
Key Cases
HRD Corporation v GAIL (2018) HRD-Corporation-v-GAIL-2018 Issue: Whether an arbitrator's mandate terminates when arbitration proceedings become time-barred. Rule: S.14 relates to inability to act; if the arbitrator is unable to perform functions for reasons beyond the time-bar issue, mandate terminates. Time-bar of claim is a matter for the tribunal to decide on merits, not a ground for termination. Held: The expiry of limitation for the underlying claim does not terminate the arbitrator's mandate. The tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether the claim is time-barred under S.16 (Kompetenz-Kompetenz).
Distinctions
| Basis | Challenge (S.13) | Termination for Inability (S.14) | Withdrawal (S.15) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initiative | One party | Either party or suo motu | Arbitrator voluntarily |
| Ground | Lack of independence/impartiality or qualification | De jure/de facto inability; undue delay | Personal choice |
| Decided by | Tribunal (default) | Court (S.14(2)) if disputed | Automatic upon communication |
| Effect | If sustained: mandate terminates | Mandate terminates | Mandate terminates |
| Implication | Does not imply admission of grounds (S.14(3)) | Does not imply admission of any ground | No inference of any grounds |
| Substitution | S.15(2) | S.15(2) | S.15(2) |
Flashcards
Q: What is the time limit to file a challenge against an arbitrator? A: 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the tribunal OR after becoming aware of circumstances giving rise to the challenge (S.13(2)).
Q: Who decides a challenge to an arbitrator under the default procedure? A: The arbitral tribunal itself (S.13(2)). If the challenge is not sustained, the tribunal continues proceedings and the challenge can be raised at S.34 stage.
Q: What happens to proceedings already conducted when a substitute arbitrator is appointed? A: Under S.15(3), previous hearings need not be repeated unless parties agree otherwise. The substitute may rely on the existing record.
Q: Under S.14, when does the court get involved in termination? A: Only when there is a dispute about whether the arbitrator has become unable to perform or has failed to act without undue delay (S.14(2)). A party applies to court for decision.
Q: Does withdrawal of an arbitrator imply acceptance of challenge grounds? A: No. S.14(3) expressly states that neither withdrawal nor agreement to terminate implies acceptance of any ground referred to in S.12 or S.14.
Q: What is the effect of S.29A(4) on the arbitrator's mandate? A: If the award is not made within the prescribed time (12+6 months) and no court extension is granted, the mandate of the arbitrator terminates automatically.
Exam Scenario
An arbitrator was appointed in January 2025. Due to the arbitrator's prolonged illness, no hearings were conducted for 8 months. One party applies to the court for termination under S.14, arguing the arbitrator is "unable to perform functions." The arbitrator objects, stating he has recovered and is ready to proceed. Advise the court.
Approach: Under S.14
-
(1) (a), the mandate terminates if the arbitrator becomes "de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions." The question is whether the inability is permanent or temporary. If the arbitrator has recovered and is now able to perform, the court should consider: (1) whether undue delay has occurred (8 months without hearings)
-
(2) whether the S.29A timeline has been prejudiced (12 months from pleadings may be nearly exhausted)
-
(3) whether the other party has been prejudiced.
Under S.14(2), the court may terminate if the arbitrator "fails to act without undue delay." Eight months of inaction constitutes undue delay. The court should terminate the mandate and direct substitution under S.15(2), following the original appointment procedure. The new arbitrator may rely on existing record under S.15(3).