Challenges and appeals

Challenging and appealing arbitral awards in Australia

This Practice Note considers challenges and appeals to international and domestic arbitral awards in Australia. It considers the relevant legislative framework, judicial attitudes to set aside proceedings, and setting aside or challenging domestic and international arbitral awards in Australia.

For more information, see Practice Note: Challenging and appealing arbitral awards in Australia.

Challenges to arbitral awards in Austria

This Practice Note sets out the grounds for challenging arbitral awards in the Austrian courts and the procedure for doing so. Appeals on the merits are not available in Austria but awards may be set aside for UNCITRAL Model Law reasons and for violations of Austrian procedural public policy.

For more information, see Practice Note: Challenging arbitral awards in Austria.

Challenges to arbitral awards in China

This Practice Note considers the general procedure for challenging arbitral awards in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) including the jurisdiction of the PRC courts, the different procedures for domestic and foreign-related

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

CICC announces revised Arbitration Law took effect 1 March 2026

The China International Commercial Court (CICC) has announced that China’s newly revised Arbitration Law, which replaces the 1995 Arbitration Law, took effect on 1 March 2026. The amendment expands provisions on international arbitration and introduces a ‘place of arbitration’ system, under which the place of arbitration determines the applicable procedural law and the court with jurisdiction unless the parties agree otherwise. In certain foreign-related maritime disputes and disputes involving enterprises in designated free trade zones, parties may choose to establish ad hoc arbitral tribunals composed of qualified individuals, subject to filing requirements. The revised law clarifies that Chinese arbitration institutions and tribunals may handle international investment arbitration cases in accordance with relevant treaties and aligns provisions on the recognition and enforcement of awards with the Civil Procedure Law. It also revises governance requirements for arbitration institutions, enhances arbitrator qualification and disclosure obligations and formally recognises online arbitration. Procedural changes include expanded mechanisms for confirming the existence of arbitration agreements and a reduction in the time limit for applying to set aside an award from six months to three months, while the law further provides for judicial support for preservation measures prior to the commencement of arbitration and permits tribunals to request assistance in evidence collection.

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents