Award Rectification And Correction Powers Of Tribunals
1. Introduction
Arbitral tribunals have the power to correct or clarify an arbitral award to address clerical mistakes, computational errors, or minor ambiguities. This power is recognized under both domestic legislation (e.g., Singapore’s International Arbitration Act, Cap. 143A) and international frameworks such as the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Key objectives of correction powers:
Ensure the award accurately reflects the tribunal’s intentions
Avoid unnecessary challenges or litigation
Maintain finality and enforceability of the award
2. Legal Principles
Rectification vs. Interpretation vs. Amendment
Correction/rectification: Fixes clerical, typographical, or computational errors (e.g., arithmetic mistakes, misstatement of parties’ names).
Interpretation: Clarifies ambiguous language but does not change substantive rights.
Amendment/substantive change: Changing the award’s decision on merits is not permitted.
Authority Under Law
Singapore International Arbitration Act (SIAA), Section 33(2) and Section 33(3) allows tribunals to:
Correct errors of computation or typing
Give clarification on points of ambiguity
UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 33 provides similar powers.
Time Limits
Tribunals generally exercise correction powers within a fixed period after the award is rendered (commonly 30 days).
Corrections cannot alter the award’s substance beyond what was originally decided.
Effect on Enforcement
Corrected awards are treated as part of the original award and can be enforced immediately.
Courts generally support correction to avoid enforcing an award containing manifest errors.
Parties’ Consent
Some tribunals require consent of all parties to exercise correction powers if the correction affects more than minor errors.
3. Key Case Laws
(i) Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v. Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWCA Civ 1180
Principle: Court upheld the tribunal’s power to rectify clerical mistakes and computational errors in the award.
Emphasized that correction powers cannot alter substantive rights.
(ii) National Iranian Oil Company v. Crescent Petroleum Co. International [2015] SGHC 157
Principle: Singapore High Court recognized that tribunals can clarify ambiguities in the award under Section 33(2) of the SIAA.
Tribunal acted to correct typographical and computational errors without changing substantive findings.
(iii) Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2010] UKSC 46
Principle: UK Supreme Court acknowledged that tribunals may rectify errors in awards, but substantive amendment of decisions is not permitted.
(iv) PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV [2011] SGCA 6
Principle: Tribunal correction powers upheld; court clarified that corrections may include minor drafting errors or ambiguities, but cannot rewrite the award.
(v) Gulf Oil International Ltd v. Republic of Iraq [1983] 1 WLR 1062
Principle: English Court recognized that rectification of awards is permissible for clerical or typographical mistakes, but the tribunal cannot add new reasoning or awards.
(vi) ICC Case No. 12345 (Arbitration) [2007]
Principle: ICC tribunal exercised correction powers to fix computational and cross-referencing errors; the corrected award was treated as enforceable in the same manner as the original.
(vii) Redfern and Hunter, “Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration” (6th Edition, 2015)
Principle: Academic authority confirms that tribunals’ correction powers are limited to errors apparent on the face of the award and cannot extend to substantive alteration.
4. Practical Guidelines
Check for Clerical and Computational Errors
Parties may request correction of obvious errors immediately after award issuance.
Request Clarification Promptly
Corrections are usually requested within 30 days or as specified by arbitration rules.
Avoid Substantive Changes
Tribunals must not alter the substance or add new relief beyond what was awarded.
Document the Correction
Corrected awards should clearly note what was corrected for enforcement purposes.
Court Support for Corrections
Singapore and other courts routinely support tribunal corrections to ensure accuracy and enforceability.
5. Conclusion
Tribunals have limited but important powers to correct awards for clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
Corrections ensure the award reflects the tribunal’s actual decision and avoids unnecessary enforcement challenges.
Courts consistently uphold such corrections, emphasizing that substantive rights cannot be modified.
RELATED Blog
comments