Parties generally expect an arbitration to result in an award that will be final and binding. The widely accepted meaning of “award” is that it is the final decision by the arbitrators, dispositive of the issues in the case. Tribunals may, however, issue “partial awards” or “interim awards,” which also may be final and binding on the parties. In addition, arbitrators may issue certain directions and orders during the course of the proceedings, which may be reviewable by the tribunal, and which do not constitute awards.

DIFFERENCE IN “ORDERS” AND “AWARDS”

Various laws, rules, and tribunals may use the terms “orders” and “awards” differently, but there are some generally accepted distinctions. The main difference between orders and awards is that orders are not usually reviewable by a court prior to the rendering of the final award, although they may be subject to review by the tribunal. Orders that are considered sufficiently final to permit judicial review, however, can in some instances be challenged in courts. In particular, orders for prehearing security have been found to be reviewable by some courts because of sufficient finality.

Even when a party cannot appeal an order to a court, if it believes the order is improper, it should express forthwith its objection to the tribunal. It must do this to preserve the right to challenge the final award if it believes that the order caused an unfair, inappropriate, or biased procedure that prevented it from fairly presenting its case.