Imposing a ‘Duty of Curiosity’ on Parties: Keeping The Parties on Their Feet

BY SPARSH SRIVASTAVA, A FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

Introduction

Party Autonomy is the cornerstone of the arbitration process. It allows parties in a matter to choose inter alia the judge of their own case. Arbitration, being a quasi-judicial process, must be in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is a settled principle – Nemo judex in causa sua or no one can adjudicate their cause. Deriving from the principle it is, therefore, necessary to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators before their appointment. Any apprehension of bias may hamper the procedure’s fairness and dilute the essence of the arbitration.

The neutrality of the Arbitrator cannot be compromised at any stage of the proceedings, particularly at the initial stages during the constitution of the Tribunal. In other words, the party autonomy cannot be exercised limitlessly disregarding these basic tenets of law– irrespective of whether there is a consensus between the parties in respect of the appointment. 

The International Bar Association recently released a revised version of the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest In International Arbitration (‘Revised Guidelines’), which is expected to be adopted by the Council soon. Chapter 7 of the Guidelines deals with the Duties of Arbitrators and the Parties. Arbitrator’s Duty of Disclosure is well-known under the Guidelines, the Revised Guidelines require the concerned parties to undertake ‘reasonable inquiries’, explicitly imposing a ‘duty of curiosity’ on them. Duty of curiosity, as the phrase suggests, may be defined as a parallel obligation of parties to conduct a due-diligence investigation regarding any potential conflict of interests or issues of impartiality or neutrality with the prospective arbitrators.  

Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ or ‘Arbitration Act’) provides for the appointment of an ‘independent and impartial arbitrator’. It creates an obligation on the arbitrator(s) to disclose any relationship with the parties that may create a bias or prejudice against or in favour jeopardizing the sanctity of the proceedings. This Arbitrator’s ‘duty of disclosure’ is continuous, and therefore, applies both at the time of the arbitrator’s acceptance of their appointment and also during the proceedings.          

Notably, there is no such duty on the parties to look into any past or prospective relations before the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The author, through this article, proposes the inclusion of a ‘duty of curiosity’ on the parties under the Indian Arbitration law. 

The International Backdrop

In the international arbitration landscape, inaction in a case of constructive knowledge of the parties creates a form of estoppel, as introduced in the Revised Guidelines, and can be considered as a waiver of the right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator. Thus, the parties need to be on their feet throughout the arbitration proceedings particularly at the time of appointment of arbitrators. Moreover, the parties challenge their own appointed arbitrator only for reasons known after the appointment.

Recently, in a dispute between the Croatian football club and the Austrian coach, the Swiss Federal Tribunal (‘SFT’) highlighted the significance of the active participation of the parties to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. SFT, while setting aside the award by Cout of Arbitration for Sports (‘CAS’), held that the International Federation of Association Football (‘FIFA’) should challenge the arbitrator’s appointment immediately, as his affiliation with the HNS (Hrvatski Nogometni Savez) Court of Arbitration was easily accessible. 

Thus, in other words, the arbitrators have no obligation to disclose well-known facts or published information. The burden of proof lies on the parties that challenge the neutrality of the arbitrator to show they fulfilled their duty of curiosity and had no reasons to believe otherwise at the time of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. 

Lately, the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal rendered its decision in the Vitadel case on an application to set aside an international arbitral award holding parties’ inaction or failure to look at easily available information could not be a reason to set aside the award. Under French law, an arbitrator must disclose any circumstances that could, in the eyes of the parties, give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding their independence or impartiality. However, the duty of arbitrators is not absolute and is shared by the parties’ duty of curiosity.

In WADA v. Sun Yanf, CAS clarified that the duty of Curiosity is limited as it would otherwise convert to be a liability for the parties. This duty shall not be unlimited; as parties are not expected to conduct exhaustive investigations but are required to exercise a reasonable level of diligence.

Analysing the Status Quo in India

Both Arbitrators and Parties have a duty of disclosure under the Arbitration Act. This duty is not restricted to the appointment but extends till the entire proceedings conclude. The Fifth Schedule of the 1996 Act categorically provides for the grounds that might raise doubts as to the impartiality or independence of the arbitrators. The contents therein incorporate the Red and Orange Lists of the IBA Guidelines, which can be grounds to set aside the arbitral award as well. The Law Commission has also suggested incorporating the IBA Guidelines to ensure the neutrality of the arbitrators.

Notably, the benchmark under the Indian law is not ‘existence of bias’ but rather ‘justifiable apprehension of bias’. The Supreme Court has not set the bar too high, which means that the parties need not assess or prove the existence of clear bias. Rather, it ought to determine whether the circumstances in question give rise to any justifiable apprehensions of bias that may affect the neutrality of the arbitrator. 

Section 12(1) of the 1996 Act allows the parties to challenge the appointment ‘only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.’ It provides the knowledge of the parties at the time of the appointment.  There is a duty of disclosure. However, a duty of curiosity is not imbibed in the provision, or in other words, there is no parallel duty of caution on the parties.  

The duty of curiosity can be seen as an extension of the principles imbibed in the 1996 Act, requiring parties to actively engage in the arbitration process and fulfill their obligations to ensure a fair and effective outcome.

It prevents any obstruction to the arbitral proceeding and enforcement of the arbitral award. As once the party did not actively participate and fulfill its obligation it may be considered as an acceptance of the same. Such implied acceptance may create an estoppel on the parties.

Conclusion

The duty of curiosity of parties in arbitration can be seen as the obligation of parties to actively seek out relevant information that could possibly impact the arbitration proceedings. Neutrality, i.e. independence and impartiality of the arbitrations is a crucial aspect of arbitration. With the adoption of the Revised Guidelines, international arbitrations would witness a paradigm shift, and the challenge of arbitration would be more difficult.

Arbitrators’ duty of disclosure is well recognised under the Arbitration Act. There should be a parallel duty on the parties. It would ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity in the arbitration proceedings. It is well established equitable principle: “One who comes to seek justice must come with clean hands”. Thus, it is never one sided and the parties also must have certain obligations to comply with.

Duty of curiosity is not to be unlimited but can be said to be a minimal level of due diligence that can be expected from the parties. It may be detrimental to the interest of parties to have blind belief and trust as in cases of Courts of Law, where the Judges decide. With rights come responsibilities: arbitration allows autonomy but also requires active participation.

It though difficult to bring such changes in the 1996 Act, it is upon the court to recognize this principle of ‘duty of curiosity’ to solidify their pro-arbitration stance. The Courts’ approach should be pragmatic if the party with simple due diligence, especially in the present digital world, could have known the alleged fact, the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of the arbitrators.