This article is an edited version of a prizewinning entry in
HKIAC’s HK45 Essay Competition 2024.* Examining the justifications proffered
for arbitral immunity, the author argues that (1) both unlimited arbitral
immunity and unlimited arbitral liability are untenable for public policy
reasons, and (2) only a qualified arbitral immunity model, whereby arbitrators
may be held liable only for intentional wrongdoing and gross negligence,
appropriately balances the objectives of preserving the integrity of the
arbitration process, ensuring the finality of arbitral awards and vindicating
wronged parties’ rights to justice.