Commentary on provisions of Act The arbitral tribunal Section 3: (Immunity of arbitrator: application for removal) and Section 4: (Immunity of arbitrator: resignation)
The 1996 Act (section 29) provides that an arbitrator is not liable for anything done in the discharge of their functions unless they acted in bad faith. Such immunity supports an arbitrator to make robust and impartial decisions without fear that a party will express their disappointment by suing the arbitrator. It also supports the finality of the dispute resolution process by preventing a party who is disappointed with losing the arbitration from bringing further proceedings against the arbitrator. Judges enjoy a similar immunity for similar reasons.
	There are still ways of dealing with a recalcitrant arbitrator. For example, the parties can revoke an arbitrator’s authority (by section 23 of the 1996 Act) or apply to court to remove an arbitrator (by section 24 of the 1996 Act). In both cases, the arbitrator may lose their entitlement to fees and expenses.
	Sections 3 and 4 of this Act extend the scope of arbitrator immunity, up to a limit, as follows.
	Section 3 of this Act provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court under section 24 of the 1996 Act for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. This aligns with the general immunity already provided by section 29 of the 1996 Act. This reverses case law which held that an arbitrator could be liable for those costs.
	Section 4 of this Act provides that an arbitrator will no longer be liable for resignation unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.