Pritam Dumbr\u00e9<\/strong>, LL.M. Graduate from the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Overview<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMost ongoing discourses on improving arbitral practice are increasingly focused on counsel conduct and client strategy. Far less attention, however, is paid to how arbitrators experience and respond to party misconduct during proceedings. This imbalance extends to arbitral rules and soft-law instruments, where party misconduct is rarely addressed in express terms. Instead, such behaviour is remedied indirectly through tools including cost sanctions and compliance mechanisms. By contrast, arbitrator misconduct specifically issues of independence, impartiality, disclosure, and challenge is subject to closer scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Against this backdrop, a panel convened during London Arbitration Week at the International Dispute Resolution Centre<\/a> themed \u201cBreaking Bad: How to Put a Stop to Party Misconduct\u201d.<\/em> The event was hosted by Littleton Chambers<\/a> and George Z. Georgiou & Associates LLC.<\/a> Chaired by the Rt. Hon. Dame Elizabeth Gloster<\/a> <\/strong>(One Essex Court),<\/a> the discussion featured<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Louis Flannery KC<\/strong><\/a> (Littleton Chambers)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Rupert D\u2019Cruz KC<\/a> <\/strong>(Littleton Chambers),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- George Z. Georgiou<\/strong><\/a> (Managing Partner, GZG)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Noradele Ghubril Radjai<\/strong><\/a> (Partner, LALIVE<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This session offered a timely opportunity to examine party misconduct from the tribunal\u2019s perspective and explored strategies for its mitigation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nAttribution and Escalation: How Party Misconduct Emerges<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nOpening the dialogue, Dame Gloster observed that party misconduct is not confined to the actions of parties themselves. It may equally arise through counsel, advisers, or other agents representing them. While arbitral frameworks provide tribunals with a range of procedural tools to address improper conduct, instances of party misconduct are rarely susceptible to uniform treatment. Their context-specific nature makes categorisation difficult, often complicating how tribunals assess and respond to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than treating misconduct as a series of isolated breaches, the panel focused on how it develops incrementally and how seemingly minor actions, if left unchecked, can eventually undermine the authority of the tribunal and integrity of the process as a whole. The discussion revealed a spectrum of misconduct ranging from early behavioural warning signs to serious structural breaches threatening procedural legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the earliest manifestations involves the use of language. D’Cruz emphasised that aggressive or confrontational rhetoric is not only counterproductive, but also often undermines a party’s case. Emotive language, he noted, rarely persuades tribunals; measured and temperate advocacy is typically far more effective in maintaining both persuasive force and procedural discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Building on this point, Georgiou highlighted a more troubling trend: correspondence addressed to tribunals that adopts a menacing tone, including threats of civil proceedings or even references to contempt of court. Such tactics, intended to project strength, often signal a breakdown in professional restraint and respect for the arbitral process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nTesting the Tribunal: Procedural Non-Compliance in Practice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nBeyond language and tone, the panel turned to procedural non-compliance as a recurring form of misconduct. This may take the form of active disregard for tribunal directions or more passive resistance, such as persistent delays or objections to minor procedural adjustments. Even refusing to accommodate inconsequential changes to the schedule may signal reluctance or hostility toward the process. While such conduct may seem trivial in isolation, cumulatively it can erode the tribunal\u2019s authority and disrupt the efficiency and flow of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The discussion further highlighted that procedural non-compliance is rarely accidental. When parties consistently test the limits of tribunal patience, they risk shifting the focus away from the merits of the dispute and toward procedural skirmishes that consume time and resources. Whether manifested through aggressive rhetoric or systematic non-compliance, these early-stage forms of misconduct share a common characteristic: they signal a willingness to prioritise tactical advantage over procedural integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nConflicts of Interest and the Disclosure Dilemma<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMoving to more serious categories of misconduct, the panel addressed conflicts of interest and failures of disclosure. Given the frequency with which arbitral awards are challenged on these grounds, the issue remains central to ongoing debates in arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Louis Flannery KC<\/strong><\/a> (Littleton Chambers)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Rupert D\u2019Cruz KC<\/a> <\/strong>(Littleton Chambers),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- George Z. Georgiou<\/strong><\/a> (Managing Partner, GZG)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Noradele Ghubril Radjai<\/strong><\/a> (Partner, LALIVE<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This session offered a timely opportunity to examine party misconduct from the tribunal\u2019s perspective and explored strategies for its mitigation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nAttribution and Escalation: How Party Misconduct Emerges<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Opening the dialogue, Dame Gloster observed that party misconduct is not confined to the actions of parties themselves. It may equally arise through counsel, advisers, or other agents representing them. While arbitral frameworks provide tribunals with a range of procedural tools to address improper conduct, instances of party misconduct are rarely susceptible to uniform treatment. Their context-specific nature makes categorisation difficult, often complicating how tribunals assess and respond to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than treating misconduct as a series of isolated breaches, the panel focused on how it develops incrementally and how seemingly minor actions, if left unchecked, can eventually undermine the authority of the tribunal and integrity of the process as a whole. The discussion revealed a spectrum of misconduct ranging from early behavioural warning signs to serious structural breaches threatening procedural legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the earliest manifestations involves the use of language. D’Cruz emphasised that aggressive or confrontational rhetoric is not only counterproductive, but also often undermines a party’s case. Emotive language, he noted, rarely persuades tribunals; measured and temperate advocacy is typically far more effective in maintaining both persuasive force and procedural discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Building on this point, Georgiou highlighted a more troubling trend: correspondence addressed to tribunals that adopts a menacing tone, including threats of civil proceedings or even references to contempt of court. Such tactics, intended to project strength, often signal a breakdown in professional restraint and respect for the arbitral process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nTesting the Tribunal: Procedural Non-Compliance in Practice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Beyond language and tone, the panel turned to procedural non-compliance as a recurring form of misconduct. This may take the form of active disregard for tribunal directions or more passive resistance, such as persistent delays or objections to minor procedural adjustments. Even refusing to accommodate inconsequential changes to the schedule may signal reluctance or hostility toward the process. While such conduct may seem trivial in isolation, cumulatively it can erode the tribunal\u2019s authority and disrupt the efficiency and flow of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The discussion further highlighted that procedural non-compliance is rarely accidental. When parties consistently test the limits of tribunal patience, they risk shifting the focus away from the merits of the dispute and toward procedural skirmishes that consume time and resources. Whether manifested through aggressive rhetoric or systematic non-compliance, these early-stage forms of misconduct share a common characteristic: they signal a willingness to prioritise tactical advantage over procedural integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nConflicts of Interest and the Disclosure Dilemma<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Moving to more serious categories of misconduct, the panel addressed conflicts of interest and failures of disclosure. Given the frequency with which arbitral awards are challenged on these grounds, the issue remains central to ongoing debates in arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Rupert D\u2019Cruz KC<\/a> <\/strong>(Littleton Chambers),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2024-02-LVYAP-dj-banner-1024x358.png\")
<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"