Bias in an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process refers to a situation where a neutral third party, such as a mediator or arbitrator, is perceived to be partial or preferential to one of the parties. Bias can occur when the neutral third party has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the dispute, or when they have a pre-existing relationship with one of the parties. Bias can also occur when the neutral third party demonstrates a lack of impartiality or objectivity in their conduct or decision-making.

The perception of bias can have a significant impact on the credibility and effectiveness of the ADR process. It can undermine the parties’ confidence in the process and the outcome, and can lead to dissatisfaction and mistrust. It can also lead to legal challenges or appeals, which can prolong and complicate the dispute resolution process.

The remedies for parties who believe that bias exists in the ADR process will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the stage of the process. Some possible remedies include:

  • Recusal of the neutral third party: The party can request that the neutral third party recuse themselves from the case, if they believe that the neutral third party is biased or has a conflict of interest. The recusal can be based on the ADR rules and rules of the provider
  • Disclosure of the neutral third party’s interest: The party can request that the neutral third party disclose any potential biases or conflicts of interest that they may have. This can help to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
  • Challenge to the award or decision: If the dispute is resolved through arbitration, the party can challenge the award or decision if they believe that the arbitrator was biased or that the arbitration process was unfair.
  • Request for a new neutral third party: The party can request that a new neutral third party be appointed, if they believe that the existing neutral third party is biased or has a conflict of interest.
  • Mediation or conciliation with a new neutral third party: The party can request that the dispute be resolved through mediation or conciliation with a new neutral third party.
  • Withdrawal from the ADR process: If the party feels that the bias is severe, they can withdraw from the ADR process and pursue their case through the traditional legal system.

It is important to note that the remedies for bias in ADR process will vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific rules of the ADR provider. Therefore, it is important for the parties to be familiar with the rules and regulations that govern the ADR process, and to consult with legal counsel if they believe that bias exists in the process.

In conclusion, bias in an Alternative Dispute Resolution process refers to a situation where a neutral third party is perceived to be partial or preferential to one of the parties. Bias can occur when the neutral third party has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the dispute or when they have a pre-existing relationship with one of the parties. The perception of bias can have a significant impact on the credibility and effectiveness of the ADR process and can lead to dissatisfaction and mistrust. Remedies for parties who believe that bias exists in the ADR process include recusal of the neutral third party, disclosure of the neutral third party’s interest, challenge to the award or decision, request for a new neutral third party, withdrawal from the ADR process. It is important for the parties to be familiar with the rules and regulations that govern the ADR process and to consult with legal counsel if they believe that bias exists in the process.

Shafiq Taibjee
Lawyer/Arbitrator/Mediator/Certified Islamic Arbitrator and Expert
Honorary Fellow IICRA –UAE