Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

How much review?

Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. Animal- Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010) (available at http://bit.ly/2SP4ugk), and Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013) (available at http://bit.ly/386VgB9), brought to the surface one of the oldest chestnuts in global arbitration: the extent to which the arbitrator’s decision should be reviewable by the courts on the merits.

This was a much-discussed subject 40 years ago in countries world-wide. Now, almost all the mainstream discussion is confined to England and the United States. Both countries have some degree of merits challenge, when other major arbitration centers, at least in international cases, have long foregone such delights.