The effects of challenging domestic arbitral award in Iranian law by comparative study in Australian law

Abstract

Challenging arbitral award is a right recognized in Iranian and Australian law for a losing party. The suspensive and transitional effect of this objection, like judicial judgments, is an issue that needs to be addressed. The Civil Procedure Act of Iran is ambiguous regarding the effect of the objection on stopping or continuing the execution of the arbitral award. Iranian and Australian law also have differing views on whether the arbitration clause is subject to the original contract or is independent of survival. In the law of Iran, the annulment of the appealed arbitral award makes it ineffective. But Australian law provides for the possibility of a correctional award by the court or the return of the case to the same arbitrator or alternate arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as, in the arbitral tribunal’s opinion, will eliminate the grounds for setting aside. This paper discusses the effects of challenging domestic arbitral awards in Iranian law through a comparative study in Australian law. Adherence to the arbitration clause and arbitral award, as far as possible, are the points that we will learn from Australian law in this paper, and they can be incorporated into the legal system of Iran in the form of amending the formal Acts or interpreting the Code of Civil Procedure based on real needs by courts.

Keywords

• internal arbitration
• australian law
• comparative study
• challenging arbitral award
• effect of challenging and appeal