Can arbitration proceedings and awards be appealed or challenged in local courts? What are the grounds and procedure?
An award rendered in Austria cannot be challenged on the merits before the domestic courts. On the limited grounds stipulated in section 611 ACCP parties may bring an action to set aside decisions of arbitral tribunals, including both decisions on the merits and on jurisdiction.
The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award comprise all of those provided for in Art 34 of the Model Law, encompassing cases in which a valid arbitration agreement does not exist, the dispute dealt with in the award s not falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement or the matter is not arbitrable under Austrian law.
Additionally, an award may be set aside in cases in which the legal procedure was conducted in a way that is violating Austrian (procedural) public policy or in cases in which the preconditions for re-opening proceedings under national courts would be justified.
Arbitration related litigation, such as substitute appointments of arbitrators or the here interesting setting aside proceedings is, as of 1 January 2014, concentrated at the Austrian Supreme Court. It decides as court of first and last instance in specialized senates. This allows for an expeditious and efficient decision-making process. The applications to set aside arbitral awards must be filed within three months after the decision was rendered. Since the setting aside proceedings are governed by the procedural rules provided for courts of first instance, this means that in fact setting aside proceedings may lead to the taking of evidence and depositions before the Supreme Court judges
Provisions on challenges to arbitral awards differ substantially depending on whether the arbitration is domestic or international.
Awards in domestic arbitration are generally subject to actions to set aside (recours en annulation). However, the parties can provide for a right to appeal the award, which leads to broader judicial review (Article 1489, CCP). In contrast, awards in international arbitration are subject only to actions to set aside and cannot be appealed (Article 1518, CCP).
Parties to an international arbitration can waive their right to bring an action to set aside an award (Article 1522, CCP). However, the right to bring an action to set aside an award in domestic arbitration is mandatory – that is, the right cannot be renounced – unless the parties have provided for a right to appeal (Article 1491, CCP). Where the right to set aside has been waived in international arbitration, the parties still retain their right to appeal an enforcement order (Article 1522, CCP).
Another difference relates to the effect on the enforcement of an award of an action to set aside or a challenge to an enforcement order. In domestic arbitration, enforcement of an award is stayed upon the filing of an appeal or action to set aside, or until the time limit for such an appeal or application has expired, unless the award states that it is provisionally enforceable (Article 1496, CCP). By contrast, Article 1526 of the CCP provides that, in international arbitration, “[n]either an action to set aside an award nor an appeal against an enforcement order shall suspend enforcement of an award”. As a result, an award is immediately enforceable even if it has been challenged, except where the Court of Appeal suspends or adjusts the enforcement to preserve the rights of one of the parties.
For domestic arbitration, the recognition or enforcement of the award must not be contrary to French public policy, and the award can also be set aside if (Article 1492, CCP):
- There are no stated reasons for the award.
- There is no mention of the date of the award.
- There is no indication of the name or signature of the arbitrators.
- The award was not rendered by a majority.
The following are the five possible grounds for setting aside an international award (Article 1520, CCP):
- The arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction.
- The arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted.
- The arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it.
- Due process was violated.
- Recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to French international public policy.
In principle, when the place of arbitration is in France, a party can challenge an award before the Court of Appeal of the place where the award was made (Article 1519, CCP).
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, recourse to a state court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside with the grounds set forth in the art. 46 of the Arbitration Act.
The application for setting aside the arbitral award, which must be accompanied by a certified copy thereof, and, if drafted in a foreign language, by a translation into Portuguese, shall be presented to the competent state court.
The parties may file a request to set aside the arbitral award on the following grounds:
- the dispute was non-arbitrable
- the arbitration agreement did not exist or was invalid or ineffective
- the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement
- the party requesting the setting aside of the award was not duly notified of the hearing when the main arguments were heard and was absent when the hearing took place
- the arbitral award was rendered after expiry of the time limit, even though at least one party submitted its intention to object to the late issuance of the award and the parties opposed the continuation of the proceedings after expiry of the time limit
- the award granted something which was not requested (ultra petita) or more than was requested (plus petita).
- the award failed to mention the tribunal’s decision on the relief sought and did not include the reasoning behind the decision, the date and place of the decision or the signatures of the arbitrators.
- the award violated public policy, mandatory legal provisions or morality.
- subsequent to issuance of the final award, the Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional the legal provisions challenged by a party during the arbitral proceedings or other legal provisions included in the challenged piece of legislation that are closely related to and inseparable from those challenged.
The request to set aside the arbitral award may be filed within one month of service of the award on the parties, unless the request is grounded on the subsequent issuance of the Constitutional Court, where the time limit is three months after publication of that court’s decision. Certain reasons for setting aside an arbitral award may be deemed waived if they are not raised before the arbitral tribunal at the start of the process (particularly those relating to the jurisdiction and constitution of the arbitral tribunal). A request to set aside is subject to a fixed court fee under the law.
Arbitration proceedings and awards cannot be appealed. However, an award may be challenged in the Court of Appeal.
Moreover, an award can be declared invalid if the subject matter was non-arbitrable, violates public policy, or the award was not in writing or signed by the majority of the arbitrators.
An award rendered in Sweden can be set aside, as a whole or partly, if (i) the arbitration agreement is invalid, (ii) the arbitrators have exceeded their mandate, (iii) Sweden was not the proper place of arbitration (iv) an arbitrator was appointed contrary to the parties’ agreement, (v) an arbitrator failed to meet the impartiality standard or did not possess full legal capacity, or (vi) a procedural irregularity exists which likely affected the outcome of the case.
Hearings will be held, if a party so requests and the court does not find it inappropriate.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court, but only if leave to appeal is granted by the Court of Appeal.
Yes, parties may seek to set aside awards on Model Law grounds under article 34 of Schedule 1 of the Act. As to this, see Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited  2 NZLR 614 (CA). The Court may set aside awards on the basis of public policy (Amaltal), fraud (Ironsands Investments Limited v Toward Industries Limited  NZHC 1277) and natural justice (Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited  3 NZLR 644). In Kyburn, although a breach of natural justice was found, the award was not set aside as the breach did not have an impact on the award itself, illustrating that the court’s power to set aside awards is discretionary.
An appeal on a question of law is also possible if, and only if: (a) clause 5 of Schedule 2 applies; and (b) with the specific agreement of the parties or leave of the High Court. The requirements for obtaining leave in the absence of party agreement are authoritatively set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gold & Resource Developments (New Zealand) Ltd v Doug Hood Ltd  3 NZLR 318 (CA).
In Switzerland an arbitral award is, in principle, deemed final, which is why appeals against arbitral awards do – as a rule – not have suspensive effect. In practice, however, when an appeal is filed, the parties are nevertheless asked not to commence enforcement proceedings.
Both in international and domestic arbitration an arbitral award, whether final or partial, may only be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (art. 191 PILA and art. 389 para 1 CPC), i.e. the principle of one instance of appeals applies, such instance being the highest court in the country. In domestic arbitration, pursuant to art. 390 para 1 CPC, the parties are given the option to agree that the arbitral award shall first be appealed to the cantonal high court at the seat of arbitration.
Swiss Law provides for only a very restricted number of grounds on which arbitral awards may be appealed. In international arbitration the grounds for appeal provided by art. 190 para 2 PILA are: (i) the irregular composition of the arbitral tribunal, (ii) an incorrect decision on jurisdiction, (iii) the fact that the arbitral tribunal rendered a decision beyond the claims made by the parties or did not answer all claims raised, (iv) the violation of equal treatment of the parties or their right to be heard, and (v) a violation of the (procedural or substantive) principles of public policy.
In domestic arbitration arbitral awards may be appealed on two additional grounds pursuant to art. 393 CPC, namely (i) if the arbitral award is arbitrary in its result due to it being based on findings that are obviously contrary to the facts as stated in the case file or because it constitutes an obvious violation of law or equity, and (ii) if the costs and compensation fixed by the arbitral tribunal are obviously excessive.
Appeals to the Swiss Federal Tribunal are governed by the Federal Tribunal Act (the CPC governs the procedure for appeals to the cantonal court if so chosen by the parties in domestic arbitration). In both proceedings the appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of notification of the award.
Chances of success with appeals against arbitral awards are remote. Based on available statistics, the chances of success to appeal an arbitral award on all available grounds other than jurisdiction range around 7%, while appeals on grounds of lack of jurisdiction have a statistical chance of success of about 10%. In addition, appeals proceedings are conducted rather swiftly. A decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal can generally be expected to be rendered within 6 to 8 months following the lodging of the appeal.
Arbitral awards are typically challenged during the ratification process by way of defence to enforcement. A recalcitrant party, in addition to contesting enforcement for public policy reasons, may contest an award’s ratification only under the grounds enumerated in Article 216, which are generally limited to challenges connected to the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure.
Under the DIFC Arbitration Law the only recourse a party may have against an award is to apply to the DIFC Court to set it aside, which application must be made within three months of issuance of an award. There are limited grounds for making such an application and a Court may consider those grounds alone; it cannot embark upon a review of the merits of an award. The position is largely the same under the ADGM Regulations.
Section 36, AA makes clear that an arbitral award is final and binding on the parties. Consistently, there is no appeal mechanism for arbitral awards under Malaysian law.
Nevertheless, a party has recourse against an arbitral award with more default options made available to parties to a domestic arbitration. In international arbitration, a party’s recourse is, by default, limited to annulment proceedings. Where an arbitration is domestic, a party would, by default, have recourse via both annulment proceedings and references on questions of law to the High Court.
A party may challenge the award in Malaysian courts by seeking its annulment. Section 37, AA permits challenges to the arbitral award on a limited and exhaustive list of grounds, which mirror Article 34, UNCITRAL Model Law (1985) and Article V, New York Convention, namely:
- The incapacity of a party to the arbitration agreement.
- The invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the chosen law of the parties, or, failing any such indication, under the laws of Malaysia.
- The party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present that party’s case;
- Excess of jurisdiction in that the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or that the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration.
- The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of the AA from which the parties cannot derogate or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the AA.
- The non-arbitrability of the subject matter of the dispute under Malaysian law. This may be raised sua moto.
- The award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia. This may also be raised sua moto.
An annulment application must be made within 90 days of the receipt of the award, corrected award, or additional award by the applicant unless the annulment application pertains to fraud or corruption in the procurement of the award (section 37(4) and (5), AA). Section 37(3), AA contemplates that an award may be annulled partially where the impugned portion of the award is severable from the entire award.
It bears to note that, pursuant to a challenge against the award, a party may alternatively request for a court-ordered adjournment of arbitral proceedings to afford the tribunal an opportunity to remedy the issue founding the annulment application (section 37(6), AA). This reflects the non-interventionist approach of Malaysian law towards arbitration.
Similarly, a party may, under section 42, AA, refer to the High Court any question of law arising from the award the judicial determination of which may result in one of the following:
- Confirmation of the award.
- Variation of the award.
- Remission of part or the whole of the award to the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal is required to render a fresh award within 90 days or such other period ordered by the court of the date of the order for remission.
- Partial or complete annulment of the award.
A reference on questions of law must be filed within 42 days of the publication and receipt of the award. It must identify the question of law to be determined and the relevant grounds for the reference (section 42(2), AA). Only references concerning questions of law substantially affecting the rights of one or more parties will be entertained by the High Court (section 42(1A), AA). It is apposite to note that a decision of the High Court pursuant to section 42, AA is appealable (section 43, AA).
Generally a party cannot appeal an arbitration award to a court; it can only request that a court set aside an award on the narrow grounds available under the FAA discussed in Question 26.
A party can always appeal a judicial decision concerning arbitration, whether it is a decision compelling arbitration or enforcing an award, to a higher court. The procedures for bringing such an appeal are the same as for appeals from other orders and judgments of the original court. Because of the pro-arbitration policy of the FAA, all decisions frustrating an arbitration are immediately appealable.
Under the IAA, a party can apply to the court to have an award set aside if any of the following applies:
- a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity;
- the arbitration agreement is not valid;
- the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
- the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
- the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with Singapore law;
- the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Singapore law;
- the award is in conflict with the public policy of Singapore;
- the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption; or
- a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. IAA, Section 24.
The jurisprudence of the Singapore courts serves as a useful guide to the limited grounds upon which the Singapore courts will set aside arbitral awards. The courts will not allow a party to ‘dress up their unhappiness’ with the substantive outcome of the arbitral proceedings into an established ground for challenging an award. TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd  SGHC 186 (Singapore High Court). However, the Court of Appeal has emphasized that while the courts infrequently exercise their power to set aside arbitral awards, they will nevertheless do so without hesitation if a statutorily prescribed ground for setting aside an arbitral award is clearly established. CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK  4 SLR 305 (Singapore Court of Appeal).
In addition, the IAA provides that a party may appeal against a ruling on jurisdiction by an arbitral tribunal. IAA, Section 10. For example, recently, in Sanum Investments Limited v The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Singapore Court of Appeal restored the decision by a Singapore-seated arbitral tribunal to accept jurisdiction over certain expropriation claims under the bilateral investment treaty between the People’s Republic of China and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Sanum Investments Limited v The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic  SGCA 57 (Singapore Court of Appeal). The Lao Government challenged the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction in the Singapore High Court under Section 10(3)(a) of the IAA, which provides that any party may appeal against a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction by an arbitral tribunal.
The interested party may plead to the competent organ of the Judiciary the declaration of nullity of the arbitral award, in the hypotheses provided in Article 32 of Law nº 9.307/96: (i) if it is null the arbitration convention; (ii) if the sentence is rendered by those who could not be arbitrator; (iii) if the award does not contain the requirements set out in Article 26 of the Law, mentioned in item 25 above; (iv) if the award is rendered outside the limits of the arbitration convention; (v) if it is proven that the award was rendered by official misconduct, misconduct in office or corruption; (vi) if the award is rendered after the deadline, since the interested party has notified the arbitrator or the president of the arbitral court, granting it a period of ten days to the delivery and presentation of the award; and (vii) if was not respected the principles of contradictory, equality of the parties, the arbitrator's impartiality and its free conviction.
The demand for the declaration of nullity of the award, partial or final, follow the rules of the common procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure and shall be filed within ninety (90) days after receipt of the respective sentence notification, partial or final, or of the decision about the request for clarification. The sentence that grant the request will declare the nullity of the arbitral award, in the cases of Article 32 of Law nº 9.307/96, and shall determinate, if appropriate, that the arbitrator or the arbitral court renders new arbitral award.
The declaration of nullity of the arbitral award may also be required in the challenge to the execution of the arbitral award, if there is any judicial execution.
In addition to the foregoing, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 26 of Law nº 9.307/96, the interested party may also file suit in court to require the delivery of a complementary award if the arbitrator does not decide all requests submitted to arbitration.
For international arbitration, an award cannot be appealed on its merits to a court. A court may set aside the award under Article 34 the Model Law:
- if the party was legally incapable;
- if the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator;
- if the party was not given proper notice of the proceeding;
- if the party was denied the opportunity to present its case; or
- if the tribunal’s decision went beyond the scope of what the parties agreed was arbitrable.
An application to set aside an award must be brought to the court at the seat of the arbitration. Article 34(3) of the Model Law provides that an application to set aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application received the award or, if request had been made under article 33, from the date on which that request was disposed of by the tribunal.
For domestic arbitrations, there are limited rights of appeal, usually only on a question of law. Appeal rights vary by province and territory. Some provinces and territories do not provide for any right of appeal, whereas others provide a right to appeal after obtaining permission (leave) to appeal.
In Panama, parties cannot appeal an arbitral award. Parties are only entitled to file a motion to set aside the award (to have it declared null and void) if said award was issued in arbitration proceedings seated in Panama.
An award issued in Panama can only be set aside if the party making the application furnishes proof that:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some legal incapacity to agree to submit the matter to arbitration; or the arbitration agreement is otherwise invalid under the laws to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under Panamanian Law; or
(ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or it was otherwise unable to present its case; or
(iii) the award deals with a dispute outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or outside the scope of the terms of the submission to arbitration, provided that if the decision on matters properly within the scope of the arbitration proceedings can be separated from those which are not, only the part of the award which contains decisions outside the proper scope of the arbitration proceedings may be annulled; or
(iv) the composition of the arbitration tribunal or the arbitration proceedings were not made or held in accordance with the agreement of the parties or with the submission to arbitration;
(v) the subject-matter of the dispute is not “arbitrable” under Panamanian Law; or
(vi) the award is in conflict with Panamanian public policy (for domestic awards) or with international public policy (for international commercial arbitration awards issued in Panama).
The application for setting aside or annulling an arbitral award has to be filed before the Fourth Chamber of the Panama Supreme Court within thirty (30) working days from the date when the party making the application has received the award. When filing the relevant complaint, the applicant has to present the award, the agreement containing the arbitration clause or the submission to arbitration, as well as any relevant evidence. No evidence can be filed afterwards by the applicant. The Court will grant thirty (30) working days to the other parties to file an answer to the application, and to file all evidence they deem necessary. If the collection of evidence is necessary, an additional twenty (20) working days period may be granted for such purpose. Finally, the Court will have sixty (60) working days to decide. The Court’s decision is final and binding and it is not subject to appeal.
Awards can be challenged within 2 months from the moment are rendered. The grounds to set aside an award (similar to those to deny enforcement under the New York Convention) would be:
a) that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is not valid;
b) that the applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
c) that the award contains decisions on questions not submitted to arbitration;
d) that the appointment of the arbitrators or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with an imperative provision of this act, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this act;
e) that the subject-matter of the dispute is not apt for settlement by arbitration;
f) that the award is in conflict with public policy.
The arbitration proceedings and awards cannot be appealed in local courts; however it is possible to initiate a cancellation action against the arbitral award in local court within one month (thirty days for international arbitrations). An arbitral award only can be cancelled on the existence of these conditions; (i) a party of the arbitration agreement was under incapacity; or the arbitration agreement is invalid; (ii) the constitution of arbitral tribunal is not in accordance with the parties' agreement, or, with the applicable law; (iii) the arbitral award is not constituted within the term of arbitration; (iv) the arbitral tribunal unlawfully found itself competent or incompetent; (v) the arbitral tribunal decided on another issue which is not subject to the arbitration agreement or did not decide on the whole request or exceeded its own authority; (vi) the arbitral proceedings are not in compliance with the parties' agreement with respect to the procedure, or, to the applicable law in case of no agreement provided that such non-compliance affected the substance of the award; (vii) the parties are not treated with equality; (viii) the award is contrary to public order, or (ix) the subject matter of the dispute is not appropriate to be resolve through arbitration under Turkish law.
Under German law an arbitral award can be challenged by one of the parties within three months from the date on which the party received the award. The jurisdiction of the court (Higher Regional Court) depends on the designation in the arbitration agreement or – if no agreement exists – on the seat of the arbitration.
Section 1059 ZPO lists the reasons to set a domestic arbitral award aside. Relevant issues are inter alia the violation of due process or of the parties’ arbitration agreement, the excess of the competences of the arbitral tribunal or a violation of public policy. The list provided for in section 1059 ZPO is conclusive, i.e. an arbitral award cannot be challenged for reasons not listed in section 1059 ZPO. In particular, the state courts are not allowed to review the arbitral award substantively (no révision au fond). The list is based on the grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign award under the New York Convention. For international arbitral awards, the New York Convention applies directly.
Pursuant to section 1059 (4) ZPO the public court cannot only set aside the award but also send the case back to the arbitral tribunal, if appropriate. If the case is not referred back to the arbitral tribunal, a new arbitral tribunal must be constituted and the proceedings start from the beginning.
The decision of the Higher Regional Court can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in specific circumstances. The appeal is limited to the grounds of admissibility of the arbitral proceedings, the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal as well as the setting aside, the recognition and the enforcement of an award (sections 1062 (1) and 1065 (1) ZPO). Otherwise the decisions of the Higher Regional Court are binding.
Pursuant to section 1058 (1) and (2) ZPO each party may request the arbitral tribunal (i) that it corrects computation errors, spelling mistakes, or typographical errors, (ii) that it interprets specific parts of the arbitration award or (iii) that it delivers an amending arbitration award regarding those claims that the tribunal has not addressed in the arbitration award, although the claims had been asserted in the arbitration proceedings.
Under Italian law an award can be appealed before the competent Court of Appeals if certain conditions are met.
Pursuant to Article 829 of the Italian Civil Procedural Code, an award can be challenged if:
- the arbitration agreement was invalid;
- the arbitrators were not duly appointed;
- the award was rendered by an arbitrator with no legal capacity;
- the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement;
- the award does not contain the summary reasoning, the final decision on the matter and the signature of the arbitrators;
- the award was rendered after the time-limit expired;
- the formal requirements laid down by the parties with express sanction of nullity were not complied with and the nullity has not been cured;
- the award is contrary to a previous award or judgment having the force of res judicata between the parties provided that the said award or judgment has been brought to the attention of the arbitrators during the proceedings;
- the parties did not receive due process during the proceedings;
- the award does not contain a decision on the merits of the dispute that should have been decided;
- the award contains contradictory decisions;
- the arbitrators did not decide on some of the claims or objections raised by the parties which fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement;
- the award is contrary to the public policy.
In addition the parties can agree in the arbitration agreement that the award may be challenged also if a party considers that it was not decided according to the rules of law applicable to the merits.
The challenge must be filed with the Court of Appeal of the district in which the arbitration has its seat, within ninety days of the service of the award on the challenging party and in any case no later than one year from the date of the last signature of the arbitrators.
Other extraordinary remedies exist under Italian law:
- revocation pursuant to Article 831 of the Italian Civil Procedural Code (in case of wilful misconduct/ fraud by a party or an arbitrator, or discovery of decisive documents, which could not be submitted in the proceeding);
- challenge by a third party whose rights are prejudiced by the award.
Yes. An award may always be challenged on the grounds of (a) lack of substantive jurisdiction (sections 67) or (b) serious irregularity (section 68). An award may also be appealed (section 69) on a point of law, where the parties or institutional rules do not prohibit the same.
Foreign awards may also be locally challenged under Article V of the New York Convention, or if they offend public policy (section 103).
A party who wishes to challenge or appeal an award may make an application to the court (under Part 62 of the CPR) within 28 days of the award being published (section 70).
The decision of the arbitral tribunal can be appealed to the High Court within 30 days. The decision of the High Court will be final. The Arbitration Act doesn't provide for an avenue of appeal against an arbitral award.
Article 34 of the Model Law provides limited grounds to challenge and set aside an award. These grounds include proving that the party to the arbitration was under an incapacity or not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator. If any of the grounds set out under Article 34 are satisfied, the Court may set aside the arbitral award.
Polish arbitration law does not provide for an appeal as such from an arbitration award to a court. The parties may agree, however, that the proceeding before the arbitral tribunal will include more than one instance. In the judgment of 20 March 2015 (Case II CSK 352/14), the Supreme Court of Poland held that if the parties agreed that the proceeding before the arbitral tribunal is to include more than one instance (art. 1205 §2 CPC), then all the rules of arbitration proceedings apply equally to the appellate arbitration proceedings.