A party to an arbitration filed a motion to remove the arbitrator (a civil engineer) after four years of proceedings, alleging bias expressed, inter alia, through disparaging remarks.
The Court rejected the motion and held that no grounds for the arbitrator's removal were found due to lack of evidence of a real concern of bias. According to the Israeli Arbitration Law, the Court may remove an arbitrator from office if it is discovered that it is unworthy of the parties' trust, applying an objective test similar to the disqualification of a judge. Extreme caution must be exercised regarding applications filed with significant delay, particularly at a stage where hearings have concluded and the arbitration has reached the summary submission phase. In this case, an attempt was made to rely on statements made by the arbitrator (such as: "I would have saved this messed up case") in an effort to control a charged atmosphere and loud discussions between the parties, which were quoted out of their dynamic context. The arbitrator acted to promote an efficient and continuous process and the claims raised retrospectively were tainted by substantial delay. Therefore, the motion was rejected.