• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Arbitral Awards – How Final Are They?

The finality of arbitral awards is often considered a primary benefit of arbitration compared to resolution before national courts. Arbitration agreements and institutional rules may well contain express wording that the award is final and binding. In this article we consider how final an award actually is, and the circumstances in which an award can be appealed or challenged. We will see that even when arbitral awards are said to be final they are, in fact, rarely absolutely so with the possibility of some form of challenge always being open, which is both sensible and desirable. 

The Benefits of Finality

There are many reasons why parties may opt for arbitration to resolve their disputes, including the flexibility and degree of control that the arbitral process offers to parties in selecting their arbitral tribunal. Parties can choose an arbitral tribunal who have the requisite qualifications and experience for their particular dispute. Having done so they will not want the tribunal’s decision to be subject to appeal and possibly overturned by a judge they have not chosen.

The finality of an arbitral award also ensures a swift and efficient resolution to the dispute without the time and expense usually experienced in national courts where a first instance decision may be subject to at least one and possible two levels of appeal. This is so particularly in jurisdictions such as France and Italy where there is an automatic and almost sacred right to appeal and the appeal proceedings are effectively a re-trial of the merits of the case, rather than confined to specific points of law.

Justice v Finality

Despite the parties’ desire for an award to finally resolve a dispute, there are some circumstances in which being able to challenge an award is desirable or even necessary. These challenges predominantly fall into four groups:

Substantive grounds

Where an arbitral tribunal has made an error of fact or law (or both) in reaching its decision on the merits of the dispute. This could also include rare situations where a party obtains a favourable award through fraud (such as using forged documents), or further evidence is discovered after the award has been rendered which would have impacted on the arbitral tribunal’s decision.

Jurisdictional grounds

Where the arbitral tribunal did not have proper jurisdiction to hear the arbitration and render the award (either because there was no jurisdiction to begin with or because there was jurisdiction, but the tribunal exceeded that jurisdiction by determining issues that the parties had not agreed should go to arbitration).

Procedural grounds

Where due processes were not followed and respected by the arbitral tribunal or some other procedural irregularity took place.

Public policy grounds

Where the award violates the public policy of the jurisdiction in which the winning party is seeking to enforce it. There is no agreed list of what might violate the public policy as this is dependent on the norms and culture of each jurisdiction.

In terms of how to appeal or challenge an award, this will be dependent on any appeal procedure in the arbitration agreement (which is rare), the laws of the seat of the arbitration, and the rules of the arbitral institution under which the arbitration is conducted.

Appealing an Arbitral Award

It can happen that the parties do not in fact want the arbitral award to be final and instead set out an appeal process in their agreement to arbitrate, although this is very rare. It can also be problematic and there have been instances where national courts have declared that appeal rights are statutory and cannot be provided by agreement. There have also been instances where it has been held that because the law of the seat sets out exclusive grounds for setting aside an arbitral award (of which more below), it is not open to parties to grant national courts a more expansive jurisdiction.

Parties may appeal an arbitral award if they are granted the right to do so by national law, but again this is rare. The English Arbitration Act 1996 provides perhaps the most well-known statutory right to appeal, although it is restricted to points of law and parties may elect to exclude it (and usually do). Other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong require parties to opt-in to the possibility of appealing arbitral awards. However most jurisdictions (including those who adopt UNCITRAL’s Model Law such as Germany, Singapore and Denmark) do not permit any appeal on the merits.

Lastly, some arbitral institutions have introduced appeal mechanisms within the arbitral process itself. For example, JAMS, AAA and ICDR all offer appeal procedures within the arbitration, but it remains optional for parties. It is important to note, however, that the appeal tribunal would be appointed for the appeal and would be different from the first level arbitral tribunal.

Challenging an Arbitral Award

Even where the parties decide that the award is final or where the arbitral institution excludes appeal, the national law of the seat of arbitration may allow a certain forms of challenge. The right to have an arbitral award annulled or set aside is widespread and it is arguably a necessity to avoid awards being enforced that have been issued on the basis of some procedural or jurisdictional irregularity, thereby maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process.

The UNCITRAL Model Law (which forms the basis for many national arbitration laws) and the New York Convention (which has been adopted by many countries to govern how they enforce foreign arbitral awards) set out an exhaustive but narrow list of procedural grounds on which parties can challenge an arbitral award and have it annulled or set aside, including:

  • The invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
  • A lack of due process and procedural fairness;
  • The arbitral tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction when rendering the award;
  • The arbitral tribunal being constituted in a way that is not in accordance with the arbitral agreement;
  • The subject matter of the dispute cannot be arbitrated (for example, a criminal allegation);
  • The award violates the seat state’s public policy.

The exact grounds of each national law vary. For example, in the United States a court may set aside and annul an arbitral award if (amongst other things) it was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means, or there was arbitral bias or corruption. France’s Code of Civil Procedure prescribes grounds that are more limited than the grounds set out in the Model Law. Even though the grounds to set aside an award are generally limited by the national law of the seat of arbitration, the mere existence of such right to apply for annulment affects the finality of the award.

Tension can be caused where the courts of the seat annul an arbitral award, but the winning party nonetheless seeks to enforce the award in a secondary jurisdiction. The courts of that secondary jurisdiction are required to choose between recognising and enforcing the award (and thus upholding its finality) or following international comity and upholding the seat-court’s annulment. Which decision a secondary jurisdiction’s court takes might depend on their attitude to international arbitration and whether they wish to take a pro-arbitration approach or not.

A recent decision by the English High Court has demonstrated the importance of the right of the losing party to challenge a final award. In Nigeria v P&ID [2023] the English Court set aside a USD11 billion arbitration award against Nigeria on the grounds that P&ID had provided knowingly false information to the tribunal to cover up the fact that it had paid bribes to secure the underlying contract with Nigeria, and that P&ID had also made corrupt payments to a witness to ensure she did not inform the tribunal of the bribes. This evidence of this corruption was only discovered by Nigeria after the final award had been issued, and so could not have been taken into account by the tribunal when determining the merits of the case. Had the award been truly ‘final’ and beyond challenge, Nigeria would have been unjustly compelled to pay USD11 billion of public money to fraudsters.

Opposing Enforcement

In addition to actively seeking to annul or set aside an award, the losing party may wait until the winning party takes action to enforce the award and then oppose enforcement. Unless it is the court of the seat, the court’s power usually only extends to determining whether or not to recognise and enforce the arbitral award in its own jurisdiction, and not whether or not the arbitral award should be set aside. The grounds on which an award may be refused enforcement are usually the same narrow procedural grounds that apply when seeking to challenge an award (this is certainly the case under the UNCITAL Model Law).

There is no limit on where the winning party may seek to enforce the award, so it is possible for multiple enforcement actions to be commenced simultaneously numerous jurisdictions. The process of opposing enforcement applications in each of the relevant jurisdictions can be a costly, lengthy and laborious one, and may prompt the losing party to seek annulment at the seat in the hope that if successful most foreign courts will likewise refuse enforcement.

Conclusion

The above discussion shows that arbitral awards are not completely final, and nor should they be. The losing party may have good reasons for challenging an arbitral award, and a national court may determine that the award is against public policy or relates to an issue which is not capable of being arbitrated in the first place. 
However it remains the case that, when compared to a court judgment, arbitral awards are generally less susceptible to appeals and challenges. Arbitration therefore remains an attractive option for parties wishing to minimise the likely time (and by extension the cost) involved in resolving a dispute.

Our expertise

With offices in many of the world’s major arbitration centres, including London, Paris, Geneva, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore, we are ideally placed to work with you both to prevent and to resolve disputes as they arise, whatever the law, language, rules, industry sector, or subject matter of that dispute may be. Our dedicated multicultural and multilingual specialists conduct arbitrations under both civil and common law systems and regularly act in arbitration-related domestic court proceedings.

Whether you are a state, a state-owned entity, a sovereign wealth fund, a corporate, a sports federation or authority, private business or individual, our strategically focused specialists will work alongside you through every aspect of any arbitration. Please contact Thomas Snider or your usual Charles Russell Speechly LLP contact if you would like to get in touch. 

 

Our thinking

  • Women in Leadership: Planning for the future

    Sarah Wigington

    Events

  • Essential Intelligence – UAE Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery

    Sara Sheffield

    Insights

  • ‘One plus one makes two': Court of Protection finds conflict of interest within law firm structure

    Katie Foulds

    Insights

  • City AM quotes Charlotte Duly on Tesco’s Clubcard rebrand after losing battle with Lidl

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Arbitration: Getting value for your money

    Daniel McDonagh

    Insights

  • Portfolio Adviser quotes Richard Ellis on the FCA's first public findings against former fund manager Neil Woodford

    Richard Ellis

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Sally Ashford on considerations around power of attorney

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

  • Michael Powner and Sophie Rothwell write for Law360 on anti-bias protection

    Michael Powner

    In the Press

  • Computer says No - my prediction of UK border chaos on Wednesday 1 January 2025

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Providing pro bono support on social housing issues

    Susan Field

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Partner Promotions 2024

    Bart Peerless

    News

  • Has a new route to recovery opened up for victims of banking payment frauds?

    Katie Bewick

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys boosts its Real Estate offering with the arrival of Kim Lalli and Rafe Courage

    Kim Lalli

    News

  • France: Employment and Labour Law Comparative Guide

    Kim Campion

    Insights

  • Cosmopolitan quotes Sarah Jane Boon on how to deal with break-up admin

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • Property Patter: Building and Fire Safety Miniseries - part 1

    Michael O'Connor

    Podcasts

  • Sex discrimination at work

    Michael Powner

    Insights

  • Daniel Sullivan writes for Law360 on hundreds of 'rogue filings' being lodged via Companies House and advice for affected banks

    Daniel Sullivan

    In the Press

  • The Financial Times, The Guardian and City AM quote Sophie Dworetzsky and Dominic Lawrance on Labour’s proposed tax crackdown on non-doms

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    In the Press

  • The Lawyer covers the launch of our new Advanced Client Solutions team

    Joe Cohen

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys expands innovation offering with creation of new Advanced Client Solutions team

    Joe Cohen

    News

  • London’s Knowledge Clusters: From Emerging to Maturing – Start Ups on the Global Stage?

    Lynsey Inglis

    Quick Reads

  • Fashion and the Green Claims Code brought into focus by open letter from the CMA.

    Ilona Bateson

    Quick Reads

  • Will new powers at Companies House stop or slow down fraudsters?

    Peter Carlyon

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hosts international arbitration event in Dubai

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • It’s not just a High Court decision, it’s a successful M&S High Court Decision

    Sophie Willis

    Quick Reads

  • Dawn raids... a new dawn?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • The ongoing fight against fakes

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Abu Dhabi’s New Arbitral Centre Unveils its Rules

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Planning essentials case update: when can an enforcement notice against an unlawful use also require the removal of related structures?

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • Dubai Court of Cassation Extends Arbitration Agreement Across Subsequent Contracts

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Good news for users of the Madrid System

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Michael Gove's announcement on transitional period for two staircase requirement for new residential buildings

    Melanie Hardingham

    Quick Reads

  • Nigeria's challenge to US$11 billion award succeeds in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales

    John Olatunji

    Quick Reads

  • Navratri at Charles Russell Speechlys

    Arjun Thakrar

    Quick Reads

  • An important reminder for employers on World Menopause Day

    Isobel Goodman

    Quick Reads

  • UAE Polishes Federal Arbitration Law

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • A Labour government: what might be in store for personal taxation?

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • What next for HS2?

    Richard Flenley

    Quick Reads

  • Mediation as a pillar of dispute resolution: it’s happening, embrace it

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

Back to top