Halliburton Company ("Appellant") provided cementing and well monitoring services to BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean Ltd also provided services to BP, including overlapping services to those provided by the Appellant. The Appellant entered into a liability policy with Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (Formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (the "Respondent"). Transocean Ltd was also insured with the Respondent.
In 2010, there was an explosion and fire on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill. As a result, thousands of civil claims were brought against BP, Halliburton and Transocean. BP also claimed against Halliburton and Transocean.
Following a trial in the US in which judgment was given apportioning blame between the parties, the Appellant concluded a settlement to agree the amount of damages. The Appellant sought to claim a proportion of this settlement under its insurance policy. The Respondent declined to pay the Appellant’s claim. Arbitration was commenced. Both parties selected their own arbitrator, but the parties were unable to agree the Chairman of the arbitration. This resulted in an application to the High Court. The result of which was that the Respondent’s first-choice candidate "M" was selected.
The appeal arises out of the discovery by the Appellant in 2016 that subsequent to M’s appointment and without the Appellant’s knowledge, M had accepted appointment as an arbitrator in two other references both of which arose out of the same Deepwater Horizon incident (i) Transocean’s claim against the Respondent; and (ii) a nomination by another insurer to arbitrate another claim by Transocean arising out of the same incident.
In December 2016, the Appellant applied to the court to remove M as arbitrator. That application was refused.

This is the lead case under the Franked Investment Income ("FII") Group Litigation Order ("GLO"). The respondents are the Test Claimants, whose claims concern corporation tax paid by UK resident parent companies on dividends received from their foreign subsidiaries and advance corporation tax ("ACT") typically paid by the group’s ultimate parent on dividends distributed to their shareholders, under the regime in force until 5th April 1999. The Test Claimants contend that the relevant United Kingdom tax provisions were contrary to Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) on freedom of establishment and/or Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital. In consequence, they claim restitution and damages from the Revenue. The procedural history involves two Court of Appeal decisions, a decision of the Supreme Court, and three decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (FII (CJEU) 1, 2 and 3). The issues raised have been decided in favour of the Test Claimants. The Revenue now appeal against the judgments of the Court of Appeal in FII (CA) 1 [2010] EWCA Civ 103 and FII (CA) 2 [2016] EWCA Civ 1180, as regards their determinations in respect of the compatibility of the tax regime with EU law and the appropriate remedy. This application was stood out of the list pending the decision in Prudential and the parties have now submitted additional documents to address the issues which were resolved in that case.