CCJ: Court rejects appeal claiming apparent bias by arbitrator

On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal in the matter of The Attorney General of Guyana v Azad Meerza, operating under the business name Falcon Transportation and Construction Services of Lot 108 Meten-Meer-Zorg, West Coast Demerara.

Details of the case in a CCJ press release centered on the appellant’s challenge to the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in favor of the respondent, which stemmed from a contractual dispute concerning road construction works. The appellant contended that one of the arbitrators demonstrated apparent bias, claiming he had previously served on a tribunal adjudicating the same dispute.

The CCJ, however, rejected the assertion of apparent bias. The Court further emphasized that the appellant had forfeited the right to raise such objections due to the failure to do so within the prescribed timeframe. The Court clarified that merely having served on a prior tribunal addressing the same matter does not, in itself, establish a sufficient basis for bias; instead, the party alleging bias must demonstrate additional factors.

Recognizing the inherently case-specific nature of bias claims, the Court stated that no exhaustive list of circumstances giving rise to potential bias can be predetermined, and each situation must be assessed on its individual facts.

Regarding the issue of waiver, the Court observed that the arbitration rules, which the parties had agreed to be bound by, stipulate a 15-day period within which challenges to an arbitrator’s impartiality must be raised. Since this period had long elapsed, the appellant’s objection was deemed time-barred.

Finally, while acknowledging that arbitrators have a duty to disclose any facts or circumstances that could give rise to a genuine perception of bias, the Court found that this obligation was not triggered in the present case. Both parties were fully aware of the arbitrator’s prior involvement in a related tribunal, and no new facts had emerged to warrant a disclosure.

The appeal was heard before the CCJ panel comprising the Honourable Mr. Justice Anderson, President of the Court, along with Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, and Bulkan. The appellant was represented by Mr. Nigel Hawke, Ms. Raeanna Clarke, Ms. Mohanie Sudama, and Ms. Shania Persaud, while the respondent’s interests were represented by Senior Counsel K. A. Juman-Yassin.

The complete judgment is accessible on the Court’s official website at www.ccj.org.