Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

ICSID committee annuls West African Aquaculture award against The Gambia for failure to state reasons

The IAF Insider · Issue No. 2 ·

Today's issue covers the full annulment of an ICSID award against The Gambia on a jurisdictional reasoning gap, an Ontario court's removal of an arbitrator for adversarial questioning of witnesses, and commentary on the proposed expansion of India's Arbitration Council.

Investment arbitration · Africa

ICSID ad hoc committee annuls shrimp-farm award against The Gambia over unexplained jurisdictional reasoning

An ICSID ad hoc committee has annulled in full the award of 25 March 2024 in favour of West African Aquaculture Ltd and two co-claimants against The Gambia, according to a decision dated 17 July 2026 reported by Aceris Law and the International Arbitration Attorney Blog. The dispute arose from the 2015 nationalisation of a shrimp farm. The tribunal majority, over a dissent by Pierre Mayer, had found jurisdiction under Section 35 of The Gambia's 2015 investment statute, which dropped the express ICSID reference contained in the 2010 Act, and held that the investment had been unlawfully expropriated.

The committee relied solely on Article 52(1)(e) of the ICSID Convention. It found the award did not let an informed reader follow how the written-consent requirement of Article 25(1) was met through Section 35, given the tribunal's emphasis on the claimants' reliance on the earlier statute. It declined to rule on the interpretation of Section 35 or on the manifest-excess-of-powers ground, and split the costs of the annulment proceeding, ordering the claimants to reimburse The Gambia USD 213,045.17.

Why it matters The decision shows that a reasoning gap on consent can bring down an entire award even where the committee refuses to assess whether the jurisdictional conclusion was correct.

Sources

Courts and enforcement · North America

Ontario court removes construction arbitrator whose questioning of witnesses amounted to cross-examination

On 7 October 2026 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice removed the sole arbitrator in Atkinsréalis Construction (Pacific) Inc v GIP Construction Ontario East Ltd, a dispute arising from the Trillium Line Extension project in Ottawa, as reported by Aceris Law and the International Arbitration Attorney Blog. The parties had jointly appointed an experienced construction arbitrator and had accepted his preference for a more inquisitorial approach. The applicant sought his recusal on the eighth hearing day; the arbitrator dismissed the challenge in April 2026 and the applicant then applied to the court under section 13(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court held that the Act's requirement of equal and fair treatment includes a duty of neutrality that parties cannot contract out of. It found that the arbitrator's prepared, adversarial questioning of the applicant's two principal witnesses created a reasonable apprehension that he had adopted the opposing party's case or prejudged the dispute, despite his accepted good faith. The court stressed that not every leading question disqualifies an arbitrator and that conduct must be assessed in full context. Costs were left for later determination.

Why it matters The ruling sets a practical limit on inquisitorial case management: arbitrators may question witnesses actively, but questioning that resembles advocacy risks removal even with party consent to the procedure.

Sources

Rules and legislation · Asia-Pacific

Commentary questions concentration of powers in India's proposed Arbitration Council

Writing on the Indian Arbitration Blog, Jayesh Dani examines the Arbitration Council of India as reworked by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The post notes that the Council, provided for in the 2019 Amendment and brought into force in 2023, has never been constituted, and that the 2024 draft has not advanced beyond public consultation or been introduced in Parliament. The draft would give the Council four sets of functions: issuing model codes, rules and agreements; recognising and supervising arbitral institutions, backed by a broad regulation-making power subject to Central Government approval; training and certification; and maintaining a case depository and other infrastructure.

The author observes that the earlier function of grading arbitrators and institutions was dropped on the Expert Committee's advice that the market should decide, and argues that the central question is whether combining promotional, regulatory, educational and norm-setting roles in one body is the right governance model for an aspiring arbitration hub.

Why it matters If enacted, the Council's regulation-making and institutional-recognition powers would shape the default procedural framework for arbitration seated in India, including ad hoc proceedings.

Sources

Summaries are written with AI from the freely available articles linked under each story; read the original sources for full details. Nothing here is legal advice.