AWARD WRITING TIPS AND SCRUTINY UNDER SIAC RULES

I. Introductions
In determining the appropriate style, an arbitrator must consider several elements in
drafting the award. Arbitrators must aware to whom this award intended, the readers
needs and expectation from this award, and the purpose of this particular award.
Those considerations will play into determining the appropriate style.
First and foremost, the prime audience of the award are the parties of the case as
they are the one who appointed the arbitrators. Both the winning and the losing
parties should be the main consideration for the tribunals in making an award.
The losing party needs to know that the case was correctly and fairly decided and
their position was dully considered by an impartial decision-maker (arbitrators). In this
sense, the arbitrator’s reasoning could be describe primarily for the loser’s benefit.
The enforcement authorities will need the operative part of the award to clearly record
the rights and obligations of the parties in order to enforce the award and will need to
be satisfied that due process was observed. Hence, the procedural history is primarily
for the court’s benefit.
With the above in mind, it is important for any arbitrators to writes an award with a
clear language, structure, and in a correct format with the goal to satisfies the readers
and enforce the award. In this presentation, I will give you several tips in award writing
and the important role of scrutiny in an Arbitration (specifically under SIAC Rules). I
hope that these tips will be able to help fellow arbitrators or young arbitrator to
improve their award writing skills . The aim for this guide for award writing tips is to
provide practical advice in this important area. This award writing tips is not intended
to set an uniform standards of award writing tips. These tips are based on my
knowledge and experience from practicing as lawyer and arbitrator for years.

II. Award Writing Tips

a) Clarity, Precision, Brevity and Ease of Use
In writing an award, the usage of plain language should be preferred (Language is
clear, direct, and straightforward) particularly where the arbitral tribunal is not a
native speaker in the language of the award. It is usually advised to have a native
speaker review the award, bearing in mind confidentiality considerations. This will
helps to make an award clear and easier to understand by the readers. However,
by using the plain language, does not mean everything written will be easy to
understand. Complex subject will remain complex. But the compexity will remain in
the nature of the subject, not in unnecessary convoluted language.
 In addition to that, try to avoid using technical or legal termination to makes it easier
for the reader to understand the content. There should also be a consistency in the
use of words, phrases, terms, and in the expression of reasoning. Choice of word is
also play a major role in this. Try to use a commonly understood words and avoid
unnecessary words, compound language. Archaic words and phrase should be
avoided.
b) Concise and Dense Award are Recommended
When it comes to the length of the award, there is no golden rule as to the
appropriate number of pages. The length of an award is actually depends on the
complexity of a case. For this consideration, an award should be as concise as it
can. It is advisable to avoid long and complex sentences in the award, that might
have a potential for the award to be hard to understand by its reader. If a paragraph
is too long, then break it into a few numbered paragraph and separated sections as
indexed at the beginning of the award that will helps to give structure and clarity to
the award
c) Structure of the Award
Awards must have a clear and concise structure, separating the formal and
substantive aspects of the award. The principal elements of the award are the
introduction, the recitals, the reasoning, and the operative part
The reason that this part is important is because this part will ensure the reader to
understand the fact of the case, how the relevant law applies to those facts, as well
as the logic that leads to the conclusion the tribunal has reached. All of the party
claims should be dealt with methodically, with greater emphasis on any points that
were particularly disputed.
d) References to Exhibits and Authorities
The extent and manner of using references to exhibits, legal authorities and
witness testimony will depend on the arbitrators and the nature of the case.
Nevertheless, there are a few general guidelines to keep in mind when referring to
them.
All exhibits, evidence and authorities that was cited during the proceeding should
precisely identified in the award, including the page references to makes it easier to
be understood by the readers. The references should be double-checked against
the original documents.
Parties own citations may be used as long as the citations are clear. References to
the parties’ submissions, evidence and exhibits should usually contains pinpoint
citation for example to specific paragraph numbers.
 Referencing parties testimony can be done by summarising the essence of the
testimony, although direct quotation may be useful to highlight a certain point. Long
quotations are usually not recommended.
e) Final Review
The final review should ensure that terms are defined in a coherent manner, that
parties are correctly and consistently referred to and that abbreviations are uniform
and correctr. Proofreading the award once is final also very crucial. It is vital to avoid
clerical and mathematical errors in the final award. Thus it is advisable to
double-check the amounts requested in the parties submissions and ensure that the
award matches those requests.
Sharing the draft award with co-arbitrators is also advisable. Comments and
supplement from them should really be considered. Considerations leading to
sharing may include particular expertise (as to substantive law, specific procedural,
or substantive issues, and native language) of the arbitral tribunal’s various
members. Therefore, deliberation should immediately take place after the hearing
while all the particular case are still fresh in mind of the arbitrators.

III. Scrutiny of the Award

One of the main and well known advantages of arbitration is the speed of the
proceedings. In order to enhance their efficiency, the Rules of some arbitration
institution (e.g. Art. 32.3 of the SIAC Rules) provide the so called “scrutiny of the
award”- a procedure of formal examination of the draft award carried out before it is
signed by the arbitrators. Scrutiny procedure is a tool that is used by an arbitration
institution to monitor and supervise the progress of a case in order to maintain the
quality and guarantee the enforceability of an award.
The Idea behind this procedure is to maximize the legal effectiveness of an award by
identifying any defect that could be used in attempt to have it set aside or resist its
enforcement elsewhere. It can also contribute to the timely resolution of the dispute,
as it can prevent factual errors (typing errors, errors in calculation), or the omission of
parts of the dispositive in the final version of the award. This procedure will make sure
the quality and the enforceability of an award.
According to Article 32.3 of the SIAC rules, it is required by the court (SIAC) that the
draft of the award shall be submitted to the registrar 45 days after the Tribunals
declare the proceeding is closed. Next, the registrar will either give approval with
suggestion to a modification and comments on several part of the award, or even give
their approval without any comments which means that the award is already met their
standards and already appropriate to be rendered. The most frequent outcome from a
scrutiny is that the Award is approved with comments and suggestion. An award can
only be finalized and signed by the Arbitral Tribunal after it has passed the scrutiny
process. In the end, this process is a tool for an Arbitration Institution to maintain the
quality of an award and a chance of success of the award to be enforced, because it’s
also reflects the quality of an Arbitration Institution.