Absence of the Dissenting Arbitrator’s Signature and its Effect on the Validity of the Arbitration Award

Abstract

Refusal to sign the arbitration award is considered as one of the procedural controversies engendered by dissenting minority arbitrators. This happens when the arbitral tribunal is made up of more than one arbitrator. The dissenting arbitrator aims, thereby, at questioning the validity of the decision and therefore facilitating the annulment of the decision by the losing party. However, the absence of signature may be due to another legitimate reason: involuntary; namely in case of the arbitrator being taken ill, or voluntary; namely in case of the arbitrator’s absence from the deliberations or proceedings. National laws on arbitration as well as the arbitration rules set by arbitration centers or institutions, in varying degrees, require the signature of all the tribunal members. The Qatari Legislator- under the old regime only required the majority’s signature. Nevertheless, an adjustment of this position has been made in the new Qatari Arbitration Law, Act 2 of 2017. According to this Law, the signature of the majority of the tribunal is deemed to be sufficient, but no reason for the absence of the minority’s signature is required according to Article 31/1. This is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Consequently, we may ask this question: is the award binding? Who has to provide the reasons for the absence of the minority signature? What is the consequence for the absence of reasons? Through exploring the motive behind not signing the arbitration award by the arbitration minority, this paper aims at answering the above-mentioned questions in the light of the views evoked in the jurisprudence and comparative law literature.