Understanding Award Enforcement and Challenge in Arbitration Law

This essay provides legal advice concerning the enforcement and challenge of arbitration awards, referencing the Arbitration Act. It details the methods available for enforcing an award, including direct enforcement as a court judgment and entering judgment in the terms of the award. The essay also explains the grounds for challenging an award, such as lack of jurisdiction. Key cases, like Consultants v. Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar SDN BHD and Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy, are cited to illustrate the nuances of enforcement procedures. The document emphasizes the importance of understanding the available legal avenues for both enforcing and challenging arbitration awards.

Question 2:
Having given the advice above to your client, he now wants to know what the parties to the
arbitration can do if the award needs to be enforced or challenged.
Advise your client with references to the Act, so your client fully appreciates the procedure available
to him and the other party.
Award Enforcement:
It can be stated that an award which is made by the tribunal and which is pursuant to an agreement of
arbitration may by the order of the court be enforced in the same manner as the judgment of the court
to the same effect. The person against whom the arbitration award is given by the court has the right to
challenge the decision of the court; if it is proved that the court lacked the jurisdiction to make the
award. It has been provided in section 73 that the right of the party to raise an objection may be lost
depending on the circumstances. However, it is worth mentioning that nothing in this section affects the
enforcement or recognition of an award under another rule of law or enactment particularly under part
2 of the Arbitration Act 1950 or under the provisions of part 3 of the Arbitration Act relating to the
recognition or enforcement of an award under the New York Convention.
It can be stated that two methods of enforcement of an arbitration award are available under the
subsections of 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Act 1950. The arbitration awards are generally considered to be
cumulative rather than alternative in nature. The first method of enforcing an award of arbitration is
done by the issuance of an application directly to enforce the award in the same manner as a judgment
in enforced. However, if leave is given to an applicant, the applicant has the right to issue an execution
upon the award in the same manner as a judgment without actually entering a judgment. In such a case
the applicant will have the right to enforce the award by the court procedures available. It is worth
mentioning that when the arbitration award is given for the payment of money the procedures of
enforcing the award include: seizure and sale of the assets of the respondent, interception of a debt
which is due to the respondent and the sale and charging of the land of the respondent. However, in
case of an order to refrain or do something, the court has the power to commit the respondent to
contempt or custody.
In the notable case Consultants v. Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar SDN
BHD [2008] it had been held that the second method,
where permission has been given, is an application to
enter the judgment in the terms of the award. In such a
case the judgment of the court must reflect the twrms of
the award precisely. It is worth mentioning that there
may be several advantages in proceeding to the second

stage rather than being content with the first stage. An
applicant has the right to sue on the judgment of the
court or otherwise proceed by the registration or
execution of enforcement of the award in a foreign court.
An application has the right to obtain the recognition of
the judgment in a court which is located outside the
territory of the country. Such applicant also has the discretion to rely on the judicial
resolution or the judgment of the issues which prevent the further actions to be taken by foreign courts.
It is worthwhile to mention in this regard that the differences in conception between subsections 1 and
2 had been illustrated in the case Assets Ltd v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy
[2008].