How is an arbitrator appointed?

An Arbitrator may be appointed by:

Method	Advantage/Disadvantage
Agreement between the disputing parties	This is the best approach. The key advantage of this method is that a particular arbitrator with skills in the relevant area of dispute can be appointed. In our view, such a person is more readily able to assist the parties to ascertain the true issues in dispute and thereby facilitate either determination of those important issues or settlement. Our experience is that until the matters in dispute are clear any resolution based on the merits of the disputes is very difficult.
Agreement between the disputing parties to have a third party appoint a suitable arbitrator	The common parties appointed to such a role are, say, the President for the Law Society of New South Wales or the President of the Law Institute of Victoria. The key advantage of using such parties to appoint is that they typically charge no fee for the appointment. Other organsiations will provide a similar service, however, depending on the size of the dispute the fees may be very substantial¹⁾.
Appointment by the Court	In some cases the Court may appoint an arbitrator to remove the work load from the Court and ensure that an appropriately skilled person is appointed to hear the dispute. The problem with this technique is that the parties have little control over who the Court may select to be arbitrator which may or may not be a good choice. For relevant practice notes click here.

¹⁾ well in excess of $10,000

Technology Arbitrators, Expert Determiners and Mediators