Free Consultation
Arbitration

Can an Israeli court remove an arbitrator for bias, misconduct, or excessive delay?

Yes. Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, the court may remove an arbitrator during the proceedings on defined grounds, including a justified concern of bias, conduct in bad faith or improper behaviour, unfitness to serve, or unreasonable delay in conducting the arbitration or issuing the award. A party applies to the District Court, which can dismiss the arbitrator and, if needed, appoint a replacement. Removal is treated as an exceptional remedy, and courts are reluctant to intervene in a process the parties chose.

The Arbitration Law lets a party ask the court to remove a sitting arbitrator, which is distinct from challenging the appointment at the outset or attacking the final award afterwards. Section 11 lists the grounds: a revealed cause for a reasonable apprehension of bias, conduct in bad faith or a failure to act properly, unfitness for the role, and undue delay without good reason. The court that supervises arbitration is the District Court (Beit HaMishpat HaMechozi), which weighs the complaint against the strong policy of respecting party autonomy and finality. Our guide to appointing and challenging an arbitrator sets out the related routes.

For a foreign party, the practical lesson is that dissatisfaction with how the case is going is not a ground for removal, and a losing party's late bias claim will usually fail. The remedy is reserved for genuine problems, such as an arbitrator who conceals a conflict, communicates improperly with one side, or lets the case stall for many months. A party who learns of a disqualifying fact should raise it promptly, because sitting silently and objecting only after an adverse award can be treated as waiver. If the court removes the arbitrator, it can appoint a substitute so the arbitration continues rather than collapses. Move quickly and document the grounds.

⚖ In Practice
  • Governing law: Section 11, Arbitration Law 5728-1968
  • Competent authority: District Court (Beit HaMishpat HaMechozi) supervising the arbitration
  • Grounds: reasonable apprehension of bias, bad faith or improper conduct, unfitness, and unreasonable delay
  • Not a ground: mere dissatisfaction with rulings or the likely outcome
  • Timing: object promptly on discovering the ground; delay can amount to waiver
  • Effect: the court may appoint a replacement arbitrator so the proceedings continue

From the full guide: Appointing and Challenging an Arbitrator in Israel

Related Questions

Related Guides

Need legal help with this topic?
Get a Free Consultation with Adv. Eli ShimonyPrepared under the direction of Adv. Eli Shimony, Eli Shimony Law Office · Editorial policy

← Browse all Q&A