Arbitration has many advantages over the litigation in terms of informality and costs. However, such advantages can be lost in a second, if:
a) Party has no control over the appointment of arbitrator; and/or
b) Party agrees through rules of any institution that displaces their right of appeal.
In a recent case with a client, unfortunately the client lost the matter in LMAA Small Claim Procedure in spite of the fact that technical issues clearly favoured them. The award that was provided by the arbitrator contained no reasons whatsoever. Instead after the award was issued, the arbitrator then gave informal reasons with a disclaimer that such informal reasons cannot be used in any further proceeding in relation to the Award. In the disclaimer, this LMAA arbitrator, appointed by President of LMAA even wrote that the informal reasons were provided on an understanding that these informal reasons will not be used in any proceedings. The arbitrator did the above in spite of the fact that the Arbitration Act 1996 clearly provides in section 52(4):
See attached file: ALCO20190010 Arbitration and Arbitrators.pdf
仲裁与仲裁员
与诉讼相比，仲裁在非正式性和费用方面具有诸多优势。然而这种优势也会因下列情况随即消失，如果：
a) 当事人对仲裁员的任命没有控制权；和/或
b) 当事人同意通过仲裁机构的规则达成协议而取代上诉权。
近期在某客户的一个案子中，客户不幸在伦敦海事仲裁员协会小额索赔程序（LMAA Small Claims Procedure）中败诉，尽管技术问题上显然对他们有利。仲裁员做出不附具任何理由的裁决，而且在裁决发出后给出非正式裁决理由，并发出免责声明称此类非正式裁决理由不得用于接下来任何与裁决有关的程序。在免责声明中，由LMAA主席任命的LMAA仲裁员甚至写道，提供非正式裁决理由是基于一种观点，就是他们将不会在任何诉讼中使用。尽管《1996年仲裁法》第52(4)条明确规定：
详细信息请参阅附件。
