The Role of Courts under Arbitration Law
The role of courts under arbitration law is a nuanced balance between supporting the arbitration process and ensuring that it remains fair, legal, and within public policy boundaries. Courts generally play a supportive and supervisory role, but not an interventionist one, respecting the principle of party autonomy and the finality of arbitral awards.
Here's a breakdown of the key roles courts play under arbitration law:
1. Referral to Arbitration
Before proceedings begin, if one party initiates court action in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court can:
Refer the dispute to arbitration (usually under laws like Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or Section 9 of the US Federal Arbitration Act).
Dismiss or stay the court proceedings.
2. Appointment of Arbitrators
If the parties fail to appoint arbitrators as per their agreement, courts may step in.
Example: Under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act, or Article 11 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, courts appoint arbitrators to ensure arbitration proceeds.
3. Interim Measures of Protection
Courts may grant interim relief to protect the subject matter of arbitration before or during the arbitral proceedings.
E.g., injunctions, preservation of evidence or assets.
Often done when the arbitral tribunal is not yet constituted or lacks enforcement powers.
4. Assistance in Evidence Collection
Courts can assist in taking evidence, especially when a party or a witness is unwilling to cooperate.
Arbitral tribunals do not have coercive powers like contempt proceedings, so courts help enforce orders.
5. Setting Aside or Vacating Arbitral Awards
Courts can review and set aside domestic arbitral awards on limited grounds:
Lack of jurisdiction
Procedural unfairness
Fraud or corruption
Violation of public policy
Example: Section 34 of the Indian Act, Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, or 9 U.S.C. § 10 under the FAA.
6. Recognition and Enforcement of Awards
Courts enforce both domestic and foreign awards unless specific grounds for refusal exist:
Grounds include incapacity, invalid agreement, procedural unfairness, excess of jurisdiction, or conflict with public policy.
Example: New York Convention for international awards.
7. Limiting Judicial Review
Courts generally do not re-examine the merits of the dispute.
Their role is limited to checking procedural compliance and legal integrity, reinforcing the finality of arbitration.
8. Support in Institutional Arbitration
Courts may enforce rules or procedures laid out by arbitral institutions (e.g., ICC, LCIA) when parties have chosen institutional arbitration.
Summary Table:
| Court Function | Role in Arbitration |
|---|---|
| Referral to Arbitration | Directs parties to arbitration if agreement exists |
| Appointment of Arbitrator | Steps in when parties default |
| Interim Relief | Provides urgent measures not possible through tribunal |
| Evidence Assistance | Compels witnesses/documents |
| Setting Aside Awards | Limited to procedural/jurisdictional issues |
| Enforcement of Awards | Recognizes and enforces arbitral awards |
| Judicial Review | Minimal intervention in merits |
RELATED Blog
0 comments