Bank Mellat v. GAA Development & Construction Co.

Bank Mellat (plaintiff) petitioned the England and Wales High Court of Justice to set aside an arbitration award in favor of GAA Development & Construction Co. (defendant). A draft majority award had been prepared by two of the three arbitrators and, together with the dissenting arbitrator’s opinion, submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration for review. The ICC Court of Arbitration asked the panel to revise the award by bolstering aspects of the majority’s reasoning. The chairman of the panel (chairman) sent a revised majority award to the ICC Secretariat. The dissenting arbitrator complained that he had not been consulted on the revised majority award. The chairman wrote to the dissenting arbitrator and explained that the revisions of the majority award were not substantively different, that both the chairman and the fellow majority arbitrator were well aware of the dissenting arbitrator’s positions, that it was not necessary to reconvene the panel for further deliberations, and that if the dissenting arbitrator had any further comments on the revised majority opinion, he should let the chairman know in writing by a certain date. The dissenting arbitrator did not respond to the chairman. Instead, the dissenting arbitrator submitted further dissenting remarks directly to the ICC. The ICC sent the further dissenting remarks to the majority, and the chairman acknowledged the remarks but determined no further deliberations were needed. The ICC Court of Arbitration approved the revised majority award. Bank Mellat complained that the majority committed misconduct by failing to reconvene a face-to-face meeting with the dissenting arbitrator prior to submitting the revised majority award to the ICC Court of Arbitration for approval.