Power of Remission: Unanswered Questions

Abstract

The power of remission under Article 34(4) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law often rides on a thin line between arbitral autonomy and curial intervention. This is exemplified at various stages of its exercise including the grounds for remission, adjudication by arbitrators independent of court directions and enquiry upon resumption of setting aside proceedings. While remitting, courts seek to look into ‘curability’ of defects over the impact on other parts of the award, which may lead the enquiry beyond the scope of Article 34 (4). The power of arbitrators to accept fresh evidence often clashes with the scope of remission. The extent of court intervention upon resumption is bridled by independence of arbitrators, especially when the modified award has altered the grounds of setting aside proceedings under Article 34. An analysis of Indian and Singaporean judicial trend helps understand the practical nuances of remission. While both jurisdictions are open to remission, they differ with respect to extent of arbitral autonomy. Courts are yet to conclusively define curable defects vis-à-vis partial remission, scope of modification of awards and the extent of interference upon resumption. This article seeks to identify and address such issues in the application of Article 34(4). international arbitration, domestic arbitration, remission, partial remission, suspension of proceedings, Article 34(4) of UNCITRAL Model Law, arbitral tribunal, judicial intervention, powers of arbitrators, modified award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, curability, International Arbitration Act, Singapore Arbitration Act, resumption, fresh evidence.