What is the likely outcome when a party alleges an error in the findings of an arbitrator’s award?

When a party alleges an error in the findings of an arbitrator’s award, the likely outcome is that the court will do nothing in most circumstances, particularly in regard to factual or procedural errors. Courts generally uphold the finality of arbitration awards as a principle of deference, provided that the arbitration process followed the agreed-upon procedures and the parties had a fair opportunity to present their cases. The rationale is rooted in the idea that arbitration is intended to be a quicker and more cost-effective method of resolving disputes compared to litigation.

While parties may feel aggrieved by an arbitrator's decision, courts typically avoid re-evaluating the merits of the case, as doing so would undermine the purpose of arbitration and the parties' agreement to submit their dispute to an arbitrator. A court's review is usually limited to specific grounds for vacating an award, such as the arbitrator's exceeding their powers, evident partiality, or a failure to provide a fair hearing. Errors in judgment or findings of fact do not generally provide a basis for court intervention.

In contrast, conducting a new hearing or dismissing the lawsuit would involve the court overriding the arbitrator’s decision, which is not the usual outcome in these circumstances. Enforcing the award regardless of