Worldwide: The English High Court Shuts Out "Inadequate Reasons" As A Basis To Set Aside An International Arbitration Award – ‘Non-Intervention' Approach Of Courts In The Arbitration Process Is Reinforced

Where London is the Seat those involved in international arbitration ought to know that challenges under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, (the “Act”) require highly exceptional conditions.  We say this because Section 68 imposes a high hurdle for applicants1; there will only be a serious irregularity if what has occurred is “far removed from what could reasonably be expected from the arbitral process”2;      the importance of upholding arbitration awards has been repeatedly stressed3; and because the requirement of “substantial injustice” in Section 68 is additional to that of a serious irregularity such that both must be established4.  A new case, Islamic Republic of Pakistan & Anor v Broadsheet LLC5 has made the position in London even clearer and highlighted that, “The tribunal has to give reasons for the decisions on the essential issues but does not have to deal with each point made by a party in relation to those essential issues or refer to all the relevant evidence”.  It appears that the English Courts will not readily entertain “inadequate reasons” as a basis to set aside an Award.  The finality of arbitration awards should not be under-estimated and parties with an especial interest in the reasoning, calculations or supporting information in an award ought to codify such special instructions in the procedural orders.  As explained below, the position is not materially different in the other frequently used seats.

In Islamic Republic of Pakistan & Anor v Broadsheet LLC the defendant was appointed.  pursuant to an asset recovery agreement dated June 2000 (the “ARA”), to trace and locate assets taken from the State and other institutions and transfer them back to the State.  Under the ARA in relation to assets recovered, the defendant was to receive 20% of the “amount available to be transferred”.  By a letter dated October 2003, the second claimant gave notice to rescind the ARA to the defendant and stated that the defendant had committed repudiatory breaches of contract.   The defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the claimants between 2009 and 2011.  The tribunal awarded the defendant $21,589,460 plus interest as damages for the breach and repudiation of the ARA by the claimants.  The majority of the claim, $19 million related to the defendant’s loss of the chance claim in relation to the Sharif family, namely the value of the chance it lost to receive payment under the ARA in respect of recoveries made from Mr Sharif and his family.

Pakistan challenged the award on the basis of Sections 68(2)(c) and 68(2)(h) of the Act alleging a “serious irregularity” in that there was a failure of the tribunal “to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties” and/or “a failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award.”  At its core, Pakistan claimed that the tribunal had not given sufficient reasons “to enable [Pakistan] to understand why the tribunal valued a particular loss off chance claim at USD 19 million and how the loss of chance discount had been applied”.  Mrs. Justice Moulder having reviewed the earlier case law and the tribunal’s post Award ruling6 decided:

“… it is not open to the claimants to assert that there has been a failure to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties amounting to a "serious irregularity" by reason of a failure to provide a more detailed explanation on how the arbitrator reached his conclusions on the evidence in relation to the US$ 19 million: the award contains reasons for its conclusion on the issues and the parties have agreed that the tribunal should determine matters of fact.  By requiring a further explanation of how aspects of the evidence were dealt with, the court would have to review the findings of fact and the evaluation of such evidence by the tribunal.  On the authorities that is not a permissible approach and would be contrary to the limited role for the courts given by the Act.  For these reasons, it is equally not open to the claimants to assert that there has been a failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award and thus a “serious irregularity” under section 68.”

The position in London is aligned with other major arbitral seats: Paris, Geneva, Stockholm and New York.  “Insufficient reasons” appear not to be a good ground for annulment/non-recognition of an arbitral award.


French courts have dismissed applications for annulment of awards based on an argument that arbitral tribunals had given improper or unfounded reasons.  For example, although awards must give reasons, “it is not for the cour d'appel, when seised of an application for annulment, to decide whether the reasons given by the arbitral tribunal are sound.”7.  The French courts, like London, look at the material existence of reasons, but do not review their content.  Despite terms relating to international arbitration in the French Code of Civil Procedure (the “FCCP”) such as Article 1502 (which confirms that French law does not require reasons for an arbitral award unless the parties have otherwise agreed that reasons must be provided) recent Court Decisions may be changing that position.  The Paris Court of Appeal8 held in November 2018 that:

the requirement to state reasons for judicial decisions is an element of right to due process; that it is necessarily included in the mission of the arbitrators, even if it does not appear in the arbitration rules to which the parties have submitted themselves.


Switzerland’s Private International Law requires that an award shall be reasoned absent an agreement to the contrary.  However, the Swiss Federal Tribunal9 has rejected arguments that an un-reasoned award is against public policy “since the requirement of reasoning is at the disposal of the parties, it cannot be considered as a right that cannot be waived and, consequently, cannot be declared of public policy”.  Similarly, the Swiss Federal Tribunal10 has stressed that the right to be heard in adversarial proceedings does not require an international arbitral award to be reasoned.  The Swiss Federal Tribunal11 has clarified that the right to be heard is violated when an arbitral tribunal fails to consider allegations, arguments, evidence or offer of proof presented by the parties which are decisive for the decision to be rendered.  In such cases, the right to be heard thus imposes a minimum duty on arbitrators to examine and deal with relevant and essential issues – which may leave open the possibility that an award could be challenged for insufficient reasons if the Swiss Federal Tribunal finds that the arbitrators have not dealt with an argument that appears decisive.


The Swedish Arbitration Act as amended on 1 March, 2019, does not require a Tribunal to provide reasons for the award.  A failure to provide reasons will therefore not constitute a “procedural irregularity” for the purpose of Section 34(7) of the Swedish Arbitration Act.  The Swedish Supreme Court in Soyak International Construction & Investment Inc. v Hochtief AG12  stressed that when the parties have agreed to require a reasoned award (for example if the arbitration is governed by arbitral rules which require reasons), tribunals must comply in keeping with the expectations of the parties since reasons constitute “a guardian of the rule of law”.  However, in the context of a challenge to the reasons provided, such considerations must be weighed against the interest of ensuring finality of awards.  On balance, the Supreme Court held that only a total lack of reasons (or reasons so deficient that – in substance – they equate to a total lack of reasons) can constitute a procedural irregularity for the purpose of Section 34(7).

New York

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitral awards do not need to be reasoned.  United Steelworkers of Am. V. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp.13 It is perhaps unsurprising that the lack of reasons in an award will not be a ground for non-recognition under the FAA unless the parties otherwise agreed that the award should be reasoned (for example through an agreement on the applicable arbitral rules or otherwise during the proceedings).  Under the FAA even if the parties agreed that an award must contain reasons, an award will generally be recognized and enforced in spite of arguments that the reasoning of the tribunal was of poor quality / incorrect, incomplete or that the reasons provided are inconsistent with the dispositive portion of the award14.


1 Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA & Ors [2006] 1 AC 221 where Lord Steyn at paragraph 26 made clear:

In the eighties and nineties there was persistent criticism about the excessive reach of these powers of intervention. The Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law ("The DAC") under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Saville (now Lord Saville of Newdigate) explained in its Report on the Arbitration Bill, at p 11, paras 21-22:

“. . . there is no doubt that our law has been subject to international criticism that the courts intervene more than they should in the arbitral process, thereby tending to frustrate the choice the parties have made to use arbitration rather than litigation as the means for resolving their disputes.

Nowadays the courts are much less inclined to intervene in the arbitral process than used to be the case. The limitation on the right of appeal to the courts from awards brought into effect by the Arbitration Act 1979, and changing attitudes generally, have meant that the courts nowadays generally only intervene in order to support rather than displace the arbitral process. We are very much in favor  of this modern approach . . .”

A major purpose of the new Act was to reduce drastically the extent of intervention of courts in the arbitral process. [emphasis added].

2 The Ojars Vacietis [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 181 Field J at paragraph 30.

3 Zermalt Holdings SA v Nu Life Upholstery Repairs Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 14 Bingham J (as he then was) stated (cited in The Ojars Vacietis at paragraph 34):

“as a matter of general approach the courts strive to uphold arbitration awards. They do not approach them with a meticulous legal eye endeavoring  to pick holes, inconsistencies and faults on awards with the objective of upsetting or frustrating the process of arbitration. Far from it. The approach is to read an arbitration award in a reasonable and commercial way expecting, as is usually the case, that there will be no substantial fault that can be found with it.”

4 Terna Bahrain Holding Co YJJ v Bin Kamel Al Shamzi [2013] 1 Lloyds Rep 86.

5 [2019] WLR(D) 402.

6 In January 2019 the claimants made an application to the tribunal under Section 57 of the Act for certain corrections to the Award including the correction of the omission in relation to the application of the "loss of chance discount" in respect of the Sharif Family Other Assets. The tribunal made a ruling dated February 2019 in which it determined that there was no omission in relation to the "loss of chance discount".

7 Paris, 18 November 1982, Rev. Arb. 1983.197, note P. Level.

8 Paris, 20 November 2018, nos 16/10379 and 16/10381. To some extent, it appears that the Paris Cour d’Appel may be bringing the international arbitration regime more into line with French domestic arbitration which also explicitly requires a reasoned award (see Articles 1483 1°,1492 6° of the FCCP).

9 ATF 101 Ia 521 E.4, 12 December 1975; ATF 116 II 373 E. 7, 21 August 1990 and ATF 130 III 125 E.2.2, 9 December 2003.

10 ATF 128 III 234 E.4b, 1 February 2002.

11 ATF 133 III 235 E 5.2, 22 March 2007.

12 [2009] NJA 128.

13 363 US 598 (US S Ct 1960). Further, under the FAA an arbitral award may be vacated only upon a showing of (1) corruption, fraud, or undue means, (2) partiality of an arbitrator, (3) misconduct or misbehavior of an arbitrator, or (4) “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”  The fact that an arbitrator “got it wrong” is not one of the enumerated bases for overturning an award. 

14 Leeward Constr. Co. Ltd. v. Am. Univ. of Antigua – Coll. of Med., 826 F.3d 634, 640 (2d Cir. 2016).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centers
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions