- The ruling also determined that during the course of conducting the proceeding, the judge may And like him, the arbitrator The Judge, to express his opinion on the questions in dispute, whereas only in rare cases will statements be found to be of a clear and decisive nature that indicate that the panel has "closed" its opinion in a manner that raises a real fear of bias. It was also held that the fear of harming the appearance of justice is not sufficient to remove an arbitrator from his position by virtue of Section 11(1) to the Arbitration Law.(See: Civil Appeal 8916/20 Anonymous vs. Anonymous [Nevo] (21.2.2021); Civil Appeal 820/19 Bayit Balev in Tax Appeal v. Association of Assisted Living Residents in Israel [Nevo] (7.2.2019); "The Art B Matter" supra, paragraph 118; On the extreme circumstances in which it is justified to give weight to the test of the appearance of justice even where the test of a genuine fear of bias does not apply, see: Authority to Appeal an Arbitral Award 10349/08 State of Israel v. Ganama (Nevo, July 20, 2009), where a case was discussed, inter alia, the parole board in a court conversation with the state's attorney without the presence of the opposing party (hereinafter: "The Ganama Affair").
- It was further held that:
"A decision ordering the removal of an arbitrator from his position is within the scope of the exception, which is reserved for extreme circumstances, since it is liable to harm the arbitration institution as a whole, as well as the honor and good name of the arbitrator. Therefore, careful and moderate use of this provision should be made, out of respect for the dignity of arbitrators and the need to prevent the abuse of claims of bias or to annul an arbitrator's decision whose outcome is undesirable [see Uri Strozman, Book of Arbitration 113 (2001); Civil Appeal Authority 1651/99 R.R. Parking Lots in Tax Appeal v. The New Histadrut of Workers in Israel (Nevo, May 16, 1999); Civil Appeal Authority 9812/04 Ivri v. Ramat Yishai Local Council (Nevo 15 November 2004)]. (Schechter, above, paragraph 44).
- A party claiming the existence of a cause of disqualification must show with objective evidence that there is a real concern of bias, since a judicial determination regarding the removal of an arbitrator from his position due to loss of confidence is accordingly Section 11(1) The Arbitration Law must be done carefully and based, in the words of the Supreme Court, on "A clear and solid factual basis". (Civil Appeal Authority 3159/12 Musa & Co. in Tax Appeal v. Amiron Construction and Investment CompanyTax Appeal (Nevo, July 10, 2012).
- It was further held that procedural decisions related to the conduct of the arbitration proceeding, which are at the discretion of the arbitrator, do not establish grounds for disqualifying the arbitrator. (See, for example: Civil Appeal Authority 6188/05 Secondary salads (1997) in a tax appeal v. Ra Gad in a tax appeal (Nevo 23.3.2006 and the references therein; Civil Appeal Authority 9535/07 Yair Sharbat v. Shalom Sharbat (Nevo, January 17, 2008).
- It was also determined that within the framework of the considerations that must be taken into account when a request is made to remove an arbitrator from his position, one must consider, among other things, the reasonableness of the time that has passed, the arbitrator's conduct, the conduct of the parties, and the damage that will be caused if the arbitration is terminated in light of the benefit of its continuation. The court will also examine whether a miscarriage of justice has been caused to the party seeking to terminate the arbitration, including considerations of justice. (See: "The Art B Matter" supra, paragraph 101 of the judgment).
- In addition, it was ruled that an argument should not be accepted that in a case in which a request to remove an arbitrator from office was filed and rejected on the prescribed grounds In section 11 According to the Arbitration Law, in any case, grounds arose for removing the arbitrator from his position. See the words of the Honorable Justice Danziger in this regard"The Art B Thing" above, paragraph 103 of the judgment:
"In the same matter, I noted that even if the party who filed the application may feel some discomfort during the litigation before the arbitrator after he has requested his removal from his position and his request is rejected, this inconvenience in itself does not constitute grounds for removing the arbitrator from his position, since this may lead to a negative incentive whereby a party to the arbitration will apply to the court for the removal of the arbitrator from his position without having a justifiable reason for doing so, in order to use the application itself to the court as a reason for removing the arbitrator from his position (see: Civil Appeal Authority 5462/08 Sofer v. S.I.Z.H. Building Company in a Tax Appeal ([published in Nevo], September 15, 2008) at paragraph 13; and Ottolenghi, supra, at pp. 500-501)".