Leah Elizabeth Thomas in this article attempts to prove that a suitable timeline for arbitration could prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings and expedite the process.
Abstract
Arbitration is set apart from other forms of dispute resolution owing to the fact that it is a speedier and more expedient form of dispute resolution. However, this is not the case when the proceedings are drawn out due to a delayed award. Delays can be easily determined when the parties to the arbitration have agreed upon a fixed timeline in their agreement, but where the agreement is silent on a deadline, such delays have to be determined on a case to case basis. In most cases of delayed awards, Courts uphold the arbitrator’s decision unless there is serious harm caused to the parties arising from the delay. Therefore, a delay can be grounds for parties to challenge an award or grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement of the award, but only if Courts find that such delay has caused grave harm to the interests of the party. A solution to mitigate a delay is to include a deadline within the arbitration agreement. Various national arbitration laws and institutional rules have provided for timelines within their provisions. Electing such laws or rules to govern the arbitration would de facto provide the parties with a deadline. However, while choosing a deadline, parties should keep in mind the nature of the dispute and fix a flexible and practical timeline which would suit the dispute. To a certain extent, the arbitrator must be empowered to extend the deadline if the matter calls for it. It may be concluded that a suitable timeline for arbitration could prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings and expedite the process.