Research Group on Arbitrator Immunity

• Maarten Draye (Draye Law)
• Rafael Alves, Ana Carolina Gatti, Anna Maria Duarte, Eduarda Soffritti, Felipe Véras, Paulo Cristofaro Di Celio, Rafael Francisco Alves, Theo Silvério de Oliveira (Souto Correa Advogados)
• Robert Wisner, Paola Ramirez (McMillan LLP)
• Valentine Chessa, Nataliya Barysheva (MCL Arbitration)
• Barbara Maucher, Anke Meier (Noerr PartG mbB)
• Franklin Koo (The University of Hong Kong), Friven Yeoh, Sui Hang Hui, Esther Loh (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom)
• Kingshuk Banerjee, Ritvik Kulkarni (Khaitan & Co)
• Aicha Brahma, Taha El Idrissi, Aïda Belhaimeur (Brahma Avocats)
• Mayra Bryce Alberti, Alvaro Cuba Horna (Payet, Rey, Cauvi, Perez)
• Koh Swee Yen SC, Danielle Wu (WongPartnership LLP)
• Fiorella Noriega del Valle, Khanyisile Ndaba (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer)
• Saemee Kim, Eun Young Park, Sun Woo Ko (Lee & Ko)
• Santiago Gatica, Elliot Friedman, Paige von Mehren, Adam Betts, Victoria Abut, Amanda Huang (Freshfields US LLP)
   

The Research Group began by conducting a literature review and background research on arbitrator liability and immunity. They also consulted with experts who have published work on this topic or were familiar with cases relevant to the research. Next, the team decided to conduct a comprehensive survey of existing laws, cases, and practices as the most effective way to gather information efficiently, including source citations. They chose to survey a representative sample of jurisdictions rather than administer the survey broadly, for practical and logistical reasons. 

To understand the current global landscape of arbitrator immunity, the Research Group designed a detailed survey and selected sample jurisdictions for inclusion. They identified 28 jurisdictions to survey, aiming to compile a broad overview of the international legal landscape regarding arbitrator liability and immunity. The initial list of jurisdictions included Australia, Belgium, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Canada (including Quebec, separately), China, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United States (including individual states), and Vietnam. 

The Research Group compiled a list of survey respondents for each jurisdiction by seeking recommendations for responsive, high-quality contributors who had previously participated in ICCA research projects, as well as recommendations from arbitral institutions and colleagues in the international arbitration community. The survey respondents were sent the survey questions in May 2025 and by Q3 of 2025, the research team had received initial survey responses. After receiving the completed surveys, the research team collaborated with the respondents in two rounds of edits to improve clarity, understanding, and formatting. By March 2026, the team received revised and final survey responses for 15 jurisdictions. 

See the original survey questions. 

The original survey questions are also available on this website. In summary, the survey covers several key topics, including:

• Definitions and General Duties: The survey asks about the ethical standards, duties of care, and general principles of arbitrator liability.

• Limitations of Liability: The survey explores the existence of general arbitrator immunity, statutory limitations on personal civil liability, and exceptions for misconduct such as bad faith or negligence. The survey further investigates the effectiveness of limitation of liability and indemnity clauses found in arbitral institution rules, procedural materials, and arbitration agreements.

• Subpoenas and Evidence: The survey questions whether immunity permits an arbitrator to refuse to serve as a witness or provide documents when compelled by a judicial authority.

• Professional Indemnity Insurance: The survey asks about mandatory insurance requirements, and whether the policies of law firms or barristers' chambers cover activities undertaken as an arbitrator (including coverage for cybersecurity and data privacy breaches).

• Institutional Involvement and Procedural Issues: The survey examines instances where parties sued arbitral institutions alongside arbitrators, objections to improper forum or venue, and the consequences of unsuccessful or frivolous suits.

The Research Group and ICCA have decided to publish the survey responses on this website as raw data, without conducting any analysis, comparison, or synthesis. Neither the Research Group nor ICCA expresses views or opinions regarding the content of the survey responses. The goal is to provide primary data on the current landscape in these jurisdictions, allowing practitioners, researchers, and arbitrators to review the findings and draw independent conclusions based on the direct survey responses from the respondents.

Researchers and authors using this data should use the following citations to refer to this research: 

• General citation to this website: 'ICCA Research Group on Arbitrator Immunity '(Kate Brown de Vejar, Victoria Shannon Sahani, and Damien Nyer, eds., 2026), https://www.arbitration-icca.org/research-group-arbitrator-immunity

• Citation to an individual survey response: 'Survey Responses on Arbitrator Immunity for [Jurisdiction]', in ICCA Research Group on Arbitrator Immunity (Kate Brown de Vejar, Victoria Shannon Sahani, and Damien Nyer, eds., 2026), https://www.arbitration-icca.org/research-group-arbitrator-immunity

In addition to publishing these survey responses, the Research Group designated a second work stream to collect and analyze relevant provisions from professional indemnity policies to further assess insurance coverage for arbitrators. This work stream is ongoing.

All rights reserved. The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) wishes to encourage the use of the survey responses for research purposes and the promotion of arbitration. Accordingly, it is permitted to reproduce or copy the survey responses, provided that they are reproduced accurately, without alteration and in a non-misleading context, and provided that appropriate reference is made to ICCA.

• Viewpoints Disclaimer: The survey responses do not represent the viewpoints, opinions, or research of ICCA, its Governing Board or members, or the Research Group in general, or its individual members. The Research Group’s editing process focused solely on enhancing clarity, comprehension, and formatting.

• General Legal Disclaimer: The information on this website and within the survey responses is for informational purposes only, and this information does not constitute legal advice. Because legal landscapes in these jurisdictions constantly evolve, the website might contain incorrect or out-of-date information. Readers must not act or refrain from acting based on this raw data. Readers should always seek independent, local legal advice regarding these topics.