June 2016- In 2015, the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London released an empirical survey on international arbitration. One of the most notable findings of that survey was that users of arbitration often expressed concern about “due process paranoia” –– a perceived reluctance by arbitral tribunals to make robust case management decisions for fear that their award might be challenged on the basis of an alleged violation of due process. In the first blog in the two-part series titled “Due Process Paranoia,” Gerbay explored the origins and consequences of due process paranoia. Gerbay also conducted a systematic review of all relevant English set aside decisions published since the enactment of the English Arbitration Act (1996). That systematic review reveals an absence of decisions where an English-seated arbitral award was set aside because of an overly robust case management decision.

Having explored set aside (i.e., annulment) proceedings in the first blog, Gerbay, with co-author Badar Al Raisi, goes on to explore due process paranoia in the context of applications to the English courts to resist enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention in the second blog post, “Due Process Paranoia (Part 2): Assessing the Enforcement Risk under the English Arbitration.” A systematic review of English case law reveals that none of the cases in which award debtors successfully resisted enforcement of foreign awards arose out of a complaint that an arbitral tribunal had made an overly robust case management decision.

Read both blog posts:

  • “Due Process Paranoia”
  • “Due Process Paranoia (Part 2): Assessing the Enforcement Risk under the English Arbitration”