8 September

HS Crowter: Chairman's Forum

The Institute's newly elected Chairman, Harold Crowter, was warmly welcomed to the first Autumn meeting of the branch. Harold, pleased to be back amongst old friends, provided an interesting and comprehensive update on the position of the Institute and planned developments for the coming year. Harold was keen to dispose of the negative events affecting the work of the Institute over the last year and to move on to positive territory by reporting progress in respect of the constitutional amendments, enhancements in the quality of training and practice, and initiatives overseas.

Clearing the Air

It is common knowledge that the work of the Institute over the last year has been dogged by internal events which have stifled the activities of the staff at Angel Gate. However, following an examination of the papers, a report has been prepared by a Lord Justice of Appeal which exonerates officers of the Institute. Three members of Council have resigned their membership of the Institute and there is now a supportive Council which is keen to move on to new initiatives.

Constitutional Amendments

The new amendments were approved in May. Of particular note is the creation of the new status of "Chartered Arbitrator", a new education programme and an altogether tougher regime whose primary aim is to raise the standard of arbitrators. Harold highlighted the fact that courts had in the past encountered difficulties in dealing with the problem of poor arbitrator performance: enhanced standards are now of paramount importance. The new standard of education for the relevant legal aspects is to be pitched at honours degree level, and, for existing members, a working party will report on monitoring performance and the raising of standards. Essential elements in the new approach are the need to develop people with judicial capacity and the maintenance of a drive to quality.

Currently, too many people are left out of the appointment process: this is wasteful and certainly frustrating for those who have invested considerable time, energy and money to become panel members. A chicken and egg situation exists whereby new arbitrators find difficulty in acquiring experience because of parties' understandable predisposition to use experienced arbitrators. If an arbitrator is to acquire work there is an obvious advantage in being able to demonstrate a degree of experience. How can this be facilitated? At present, the appointment process is somewhat haphazard and the cycle needs to be broken. What is required is some form of "apprenticeship". This could be achieved within the Institute by means of a broader distribution of work under the ABTA documents-only scheme, coupled with a course of training. The proposal is to offer 5 10 ABTA cases to new arbitrators who will work under the guidance of experienced people as mentors or masters. The fee would be split equally between arbitrator and mentor. For the early cases, the draft award will be submitted to the mentor for comment and published only after the mentor has given a "green light". The total turnaround for this would be a maximum of 10 days. This process could be subject to some adjustment after perhaps 5 awards. Clearly, there are limits to what the Institute can achieve, particularly since most appointments emanate from the parties, but, where it does make appointments, benefits could be achieved by spreading the net. It is interesting to note that of 270 panel members only some 70 ever receive appointments, and of those there is a weighting in favour of a few.

International Developments

The majority of new members are now from overseas: in total, the Institute's membership will exceed 9000 covering some 80 countries. Overseas membership is to be encouraged and there are now proposals for some fee adjustment according to ability to pay. Two particular areas of importance are China and Latin America. China now has more arbitrators (albeit in a different arbitration environment) than anywhere else in the world. Latin America is the new growth area and the Institute is seeking to expand its influence there: The Chairman and Secretary General will be visiting a number of countries in the region and, of course, there is the planned conference in Cancun, Mexico, in February next year.

A new Secretary-General

Kerry Harding is due to retire next year after 17 years with the Institute. It is hoped that a new appointment will be made by the Spring of next year, details of which are yet to be clarified.

Harold's message was well-received and a number of supportive comments were made in subsequent discussion. However, some concerns were expressed, amongst which were: Are we creating too many candidates? When considering quality "legislation", how do we account for non-members? Are we in danger of over-emphasising the role of the individual at the expense of the broader purpose of advancing the cause of arbitration? Monitoring is useful but we should be less of an appointing body and more a learned institution. Is documents-only arbitration for training purposes too limited should there not now be more emphasis on interlocutory problems? Is the Institute appropriately named given the growing popularity of other forms of dispute resolution?

To summarise, Harold's response suggested that all these factors were important: clearly we must not lose sight of our overall mission, but inevitably it is the practitioners who bear the flag and it is essential that we attempt to develop and maintain good practice. The monitoring process is important and the Institute, whilst not having a monopoly, should seek to extend its contact influence with other appointing institutions. For training purposes, documents-only work is of course limited, but it is a useful initial step in the right direction. The Institute is involved in other forms of dispute resolution, but its main activity is clearly arbitration, and any obituary for this area of work would indeed be premature.

Peter Talbot