Remedies Against Incomplete, Erroneous and Unclear International Arbitral Awards

There is a clear body of transnational law emerging from Article 33 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law. Parties to an arbitral dispute may seek correction and interpretation of an award, within the time limits (usually 30 days) set by statute and the object of the request must be targeted against a slip (computational, typographical or similar mistake) or an oversight in the award. Anything beyond a slip or an oversight that effectively targets the thought process of the arbitrators cannot be amenable to the process of correction under Article 33. Hence, a conscious “mistake” by the tribunal does not constitute an error under Article 33 but an appeal against the arbitrators’ personal judgment or knowledge, which is unacceptable. In equal measure, such a mistake would not usually give rise to a ground for setting the award aside. A much more contentious issue is whether the courts and the tribunal itself possess authority to extend the time lines for making an application for correction or interpretation. There seems to be emerging consensus that if there is agreement between the parties, such consent serves as an exception to the functus officio nature of the tribunal. The same considerations apply mutatis mutandis in respect of requests for an additional award, the aim of which is to address claims that the tribunal omitted to address in its original award.