Impartiality

Impartiality is one of the two foundational requirements for any ADR neutral — the other being independence. The distinction matters: **Impartiality** concerns the neutral's state of mind — whether they have a bias or preference toward one party over the other, regardless of their relationships or interests. **Independence** concerns the neutral's external circumstances — whether they have any relationship, interest, or prior dealings with a party that might compromise their judgment, or that a reasonable observer might see as compromising it. A neutral can be independent but partial (no relationship conflicts, but personally biased toward one party's position) or dependent but impartial (a prior professional relationship with one party, but no actual bias in the proceedings). Both can be grounds for challenge. ## Disclosure obligations The applicable disclosure obligations depend on the process, governing law, institutional rules, and the parties' agreement. The 1996 Act's Fifth Schedule lists circumstances that may give rise to such doubts; the Seventh Schedule lists circumstances that automatically disqualify an arbitrator unless waived by both parties after disclosure. ## Challenging a neutral If a party has grounds to doubt the neutral's impartiality, the procedure differs by process: **Arbitration.** A challenge must be raised within 15 days of the party becoming aware of the circumstances. If the other party does not agree to the challenge or the arbitrator does not withdraw, the challenging party can apply to the High Court to decide it. ## Practical significance Impartiality is what makes ADR outcomes feel legitimate — and, practically, what makes them durable. A settlement reached through mediation where one party felt the mediator was biased is more likely to be resisted, re-litigated, or simply not honoured in spirit. An arbitral award produced by a partial tribunal is exactly what Section 34's grounds for challenge are designed to address.