– Recourse against Arbitral Award
Recourse Against Arbitral Award
An arbitral award is the final decision made by an arbitration tribunal in resolving a dispute. Once an award is made, the general principle is that it is binding and final on the parties, with very limited grounds for challenge or recourse. This finality is crucial to preserve the efficiency and certainty of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.
I. Grounds for Recourse Against an Arbitral Award
Recourse against an arbitral award refers to the legal actions or remedies available to a party dissatisfied with the award. These remedies vary by jurisdiction but generally include:
1. Setting Aside (Annulment) of the Award
This is a request made to the court of the seat of arbitration (the country where arbitration is legally based) to annul or set aside the award.
Grounds are strictly limited and often codified in arbitration laws and international instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
2. Refusal of Enforcement
Courts in the country where enforcement is sought may refuse to enforce the award on certain grounds.
This is particularly relevant in the context of international arbitration where enforcement under the New York Convention (1958) applies.
3. Appeal or Review
Unlike normal court judgments, arbitration awards generally cannot be appealed on the merits.
However, some jurisdictions or arbitration rules provide limited appellate or supervisory mechanisms.
II. Common Grounds for Setting Aside or Refusal of Enforcement
Under the UNCITRAL Model Law (Article 34 - Setting Aside):
A court may set aside an arbitral award if:
Invalid Arbitration Agreement
The arbitration agreement is invalid under the applicable law.
Lack of Proper Notice or Due Process
The party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case.
Excess of Jurisdiction
The award deals with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or arbitrator’s mandate.
Improper Composition of Tribunal or Procedure
The arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted or the procedure was not followed.
Award is Contrary to Public Policy
The award is in conflict with the public policy of the country where enforcement is sought.
Under the New York Convention (Article V - Refusal of Enforcement):
Similar grounds exist, including:
Invalid arbitration agreement
Violation of due process
Award beyond arbitration scope
Improper tribunal composition
Award conflicts with public policy
III. Key Case Laws on Recourse Against Arbitral Award
1. Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40 (House of Lords)
The House of Lords emphasized the pro-arbitration stance of courts.
It held that courts should interpret arbitration clauses to favor arbitration rather than litigation.
This case discourages courts from setting aside awards lightly, reinforcing the principle of finality and minimal interference.
2. Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46 (UK Supreme Court)
The court set aside the award on the ground that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
It clarified that courts have jurisdiction to review whether the arbitration agreement exists and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction.
3. Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (US Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court held that parties cannot contractually expand the grounds for judicial review of an arbitral award beyond those specified in the FAA.
Reinforces limited grounds for setting aside or vacating awards in the US.
4. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v Saw Pipes Ltd AIR 2003 SC 2629 (India)
The Supreme Court of India held that an arbitral award can be set aside if the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.
Also highlighted the limited scope of judicial interference with arbitration awards.
5. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA and Others [2005] UKHL 43
The House of Lords held that the court may refuse enforcement of an award on the ground of public policy if enforcement would be fundamentally offensive to the forum’s notions of justice or morality.
IV. Procedure for Recourse
1. Setting Aside
Must be done within a strict time frame after the award is rendered (often 3 months).
Party applies to the competent court at the seat of arbitration.
Court will examine the grounds and may set aside the award fully or partially.
2. Enforcement and Refusal
The winning party applies to the court in the country where enforcement is sought.
The court may refuse enforcement on limited grounds.
If enforcement is refused, the award may effectively be rendered useless in that jurisdiction.
V. Summary Table: Grounds for Recourse
| Ground | Setting Aside | Refusal of Enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Invalid arbitration agreement | Yes | Yes |
| Procedural irregularity/due process | Yes | Yes |
| Excess of jurisdiction | Yes | Yes |
| Improper tribunal composition | Yes | Yes |
| Award conflicts with public policy | Yes | Yes |
| Disagreement on merits | No | No |
VI. Conclusion
Recourse against arbitral awards is strictly limited to protect the finality and effectiveness of arbitration. Courts generally respect the autonomy of arbitration and intervene only when:
The arbitration process was unfair,
The tribunal exceeded its powers,
The arbitration agreement is invalid, or
The award violates public policy.
This balance ensures arbitration remains an effective alternative dispute resolution method while providing a safety net against unjust or improper awards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments