Interim Award Confirms Validity of Arbitrator Appointment in Multimillion Construction Arbitration

Our firm represents the Contractor/Claimant in multimillion arbitration proceedings arising out of the construction of a hotel development. The Employer challenged the validity of the Arbitrator’s appointment, alleging non-compliance with the contractual mechanism.

In an Interim Award, the Arbitrator rejected the objection and clarified key principles governing the proper appointment of an arbitrator.

Interpreting clause 36(5)(a) of the CJCCT Contract, the Arbitrator held that the requirement of notification “by registered letter or certified delivery” does not mandate formal court service.

Given the established course of dealings between the parties, electronic communication—sent and acknowledged—was deemed to constitute, in modern commercial practice, effective and equivalent “certified delivery.”

The Award further relied on Russell on Arbitration (12th ed., p.123), confirming the established principle that: “An appointment of an arbitrator by a party is not complete without communication thereof to the other party.”

The decision reinforces that validity turns on substantive and proven notification, ensuring fairness and procedural integrity in arbitral proceedings.