Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards

By Antoine, Olivier | Dispute Resolution Journal, August 1999 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards

Antoine, Olivier, Dispute Resolution Journal

There is a "middle ground" that must be sought between "pure efficiency and abstract justice" that provides the proper scope of judicial review of arbitration awards, says Olivier Antoine. That middle ground is a narrow review of awards that works in tandem with court-created general principles "potentially applicable to all grounds of review."

Antoine provides a comprehensive examination of the statutory and nonstatutory or contractual grounds of judicial review against a backdrop of important evolving case law.

Arbitration is the process by which private parties choose to submit a dispute to a neutral third party: the arbitrator. The arbitrator will decide the dispute and render an award that is deemed to be final and binding.

However, if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may enter an action to vacate1 the award before a judge.2 Conversely, if the losing party refuses to comply with the award, the other party will have to request the confirmation3 of the award before a judge to have the award enforced.

Those actions introduce a judicial officer in the arbitration process or, to be more specific, after the arbitration process. The judge will review the award with the standards of review provided by section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act and relevant case law.4

One could question the rationale of this review; the parties having bargained for arbitration to avoid litigation, it would seem fair to make them comply with the outcome of the dispute resolution mechanism they bargained for, whatever it may be. However, the raison d'etre of the judicial review of arbitration awards resides in the conflict of two different public policies: the public policy favoring arbitration and the general public interest in having an acceptable arbitration process.5 For example, it is contrary to this public interest to enforce an award if the arbitrator was corrupted' by one of the parties.'

The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards necessarily determines the utility of the arbitration process.8 If the law provides a broad review on the merits, arbitration could become a preliminary step to litigation, a mere advisory process, or simply a private trial court whose awards will be reviewed by an appellate judicial officer. Conversely, if the law does not provide judicial review of arbitration awards, one could consider this process as a sort of "inferior system of justice"9 where, for example, one could be subject to a biased arbitrator. A "middle ground" has to be sought between pure efficiency and abstract justice.

The easiest way to resolve this quandary is to adopt a narrow" review of arbitration awards and general principles that will avoid useless litigation over awards. In addition to the very rigid interpretation of statutory and nonstatutory grounds of review, courts have created general principles potentially applicable to all grounds of review.

First of all the award is presumed to be valid,12 and the burden of proving invalidity rests on the party challenging the award. Secondly, there is generally no review for errors or misinterpretation of fact or law.'3 In the same fashion, the arbitration proceeding would not be invalidated if rules of evidence or procedure applicable to trials were not applied.'4 Thirdly, the court will apply the "harmless error" rule to determine vacatur of the award; in other words, vacatur will only be granted if the alleged fact was prejudicial to the party contesting the award.

Statutory Grounds of Judicial Review

Section 10 of the FAA states several grounds for vacating an award in a domestic case. The most commonly advanced attack on awards relies on the "corruption, fraud, undue means" and "partiality" language of section 10(a)(1)(2). Section 10(a)(3) and 10(a)(4), respectively dealing with "misconduct" of arbitrators and arbitrators "exceeding powers," are the two other grounds embodied in the FAA.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?