Lawyers have said, due to the costliness and length of arbitrations, a right of appeal would make international arbitration less attractive, according to new research by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

A large majority of respondents (71%) to the firm's annual arbitration survey said that when facing an international arbitration panel, they would prefer not to have a right of appeal, over concerns that this would further drag out a dispute over a longer time and cause greater expense.

The worldwide survey from 123 respondents canvassed in-house counsel, arbitrators, external lawyers, expert witnesses, academics and litigation funders.

It found that arbitration was often preferred to litigation as part of the 'bargain' struck between parties in dispute, report author George Burn, BCLP's head of international arbitration, said.

"One of the reasons why parties choose arbitration over litigation is the principle of finality—that the decision of an arbitral tribunal on the substance of the dispute cannot be appealed," he said. "Increasing the duration and cost of the arbitration process by permitting an appeal may operate to its detriment."

Burns said that 50% of respondents indicated that "they had been hit with an 'obviously wrong ruling' in the past, yet still would sign up for a no appeal process".

The preference for no right of appeal did shift if industry sectors had long-established, well-developed and widely used arbitration procedures providing or permitting appeals against an award, especially in the sports and commodities sectors, the survey said.

Read more

International Arbitration in the Midst of COVID-19