Awards, Challenges and Enforcement
The Awards, Challenges and Enforcement domain tests outcomes: what an award must contain, how it can be corrected, challenged or resisted, and where it can be enforced.
Awards
Common types are final, partial, interim, consent and default awards. Model Law Article 31 requires the award to be in writing, signed, reasoned unless otherwise agreed, dated and to state the seat. Under Article 33 a party may request correction of arithmetic or clerical errors, or interpretation, within 30 days. Consent awards record a settlement but may be set aside where the underlying dispute is non-arbitrable.
Challenges
Model Law Article 34 permits setting aside only on limited grounds: incapacity, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of notice, inability to present a case, award beyond scope, improper composition, non-arbitrability or public policy. The English Arbitration Act 1996 separates substantive jurisdiction challenges (section 67), serious irregularity (section 68) and appeal on a point of law (section 69, which can be excluded). Waiver is strict: a party must object promptly or lose the point.
Enforcement
Under New York Convention Articles III and V a foreign award is enforced on application supported by the award and the arbitration agreement, and refusal is confined to Article V grounds. Courts apply a pro-enforcement bias and construe public policy narrowly. The US Federal Arbitration Act sets three years to confirm an award and three months to move to vacate.
Worked example
After an award dismissing its counterclaim, a respondent argues the tribunal misunderstood the contract. Misunderstanding a point of law is not a ground in most jurisdictions; where section 69 applies it requires leave and a genuine question of law, and the right can be excluded entirely. A tribunal's failure to address a pleaded head of claim, by contrast, may amount to deciding beyond the issues or a serious irregularity if it caused substantial injustice. Identify which ground fits before advising on forum.
Traps
Treating a challenge as a merits appeal; missing short challenge deadlines; applying for enforcement without producing the arbitration agreement; assuming 'public policy' means the judge's view of a fair result; ignoring waiver by failing to object during the hearing.