International Council

Nabil Al Jawhari * ( Generated by AI, revised and amended by me)

Arbitration has long been hailed as a faster, more flexible, and often more cost-effective alternative to traditional court litigation. However, the question arises: once an arbitration award is rendered, is there another bite in the arbitration apple? In other words, can the award be revisited or challenged?

The principle of finality in arbitration is one of its key selling points. Parties often choose arbitration to avoid the protracted appeals process associated with court decisions. Nevertheless, various legal systems and institutional rules provide mechanisms for challenging or revisiting arbitration awards, albeit under very limited and specific circumstances.

One common ground for challenging an arbitration award is the lack of jurisdiction. If an arbitral tribunal has exceeded its mandate or if there were issues concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement, courts may set aside the award. For instance, in the case of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act are exclusive and cannot be expanded by agreement of the parties.

Procedural irregularities also provide a potential avenue for a second bite. If the arbitral process was tainted by corruption, fraud, or undue influence, or if there was a failure to follow due process, courts may intervene. A notable example is the Yukos v. Russia case, where the Permanent Court of Arbitration set aside a $50 billion award on the grounds that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority.

Public policy is another critical ground for challenging arbitration awards. If the enforcement of an award would contravene the fundamental principles of the forum state, courts have the discretion to refuse enforcement. This principle is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. case illustrates this point, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that an arbitration award could be set aside if it violated public policy.

There are also avenues for revisiting awards within the arbitration framework itself. Many arbitration rules, such as those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), allow for a limited review process. Parties may request a correction of clerical, typographical, or computational errors in the award. In some instances, they can also seek an interpretation of specific parts of the award.

Despite these possibilities, it is important to remember that the threshold for successfully challenging an arbitration award is exceptionally high. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with arbitral decisions, emphasizing the importance of finality and party autonomy. This deference is based on the understanding that parties have chosen arbitration as a means of resolving their disputes and have agreed to be bound by the arbitral tribunal’s decision.

While there are indeed limited avenues for taking another bite at the arbitration apple, they are narrow and infrequently successful. The overarching principle remains that arbitration awards are intended to be final and binding, ensuring that arbitration remains an efficient and effective means of dispute resolution.

*Nabil Al Jawhari

Post graduate in law

President of International Council Lebanon

International arbitrator