This comparative legal study examines the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards in Iran and England to evaluate how each system supports arbitration. Using doctrinal analysis of statutes, case law, and scholarly views, it highlights key differences in judicial approaches and legal frameworks.
England’s Arbitration Act 1996 and pro-arbitration judicial practice create a strong legal environment that limits court interference and promotes finality of awards. English courts intervene only in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, serious procedural errors, or clear legal mistakes. They also enforce foreign awards under the New York Convention with a strong presumption in favor of recognition.
In contrast, Iran’s system faces challenges despite adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law. Broad interpretations of terms like “public order” and “laws giving rise to rights,” refusal to uphold arbitration clause separability, and constitutional restrictions on arbitration involving public assets lead to frequent annulments. Iranian courts often review awards more extensively, weakening arbitration’s effectiveness and independence.
The study suggests reforms for Iran, including formally recognizing arbitration clause separability, clarifying vague legal terms to prevent arbitrary annulments, and simplifying arbitration involving public entities. These changes could strengthen arbitration’s legitimacy and align Iran with international best practices, making it a more attractive jurisdiction for dispute resolution.