Webinar - The Art of Award Writing: Mastery Beyond the Basics

What makes a good award—and how to produce one? 

While the science of award writing is generally well-known, the art of crafting an award that is truly excellent often eludes young practitioners and aspiring arbitrators. This panel of experienced arbitrators, counsel and former senior members of leading arbitral institutions will lift the proverbial veil on award writing and explore what it takes to produce a fine award, paving the way for future appointments and a successful career as an arbitrator. 

Panellists: 

Sarah Lancaster (London, UK, Chambers Director, Arbitration Chambers)

Jennifer Kirby (Paris, France / New York, USA, International Arbitrator)

Remy Gerbay (Washington, D.C., Partner, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP)

Moderator: 

Maxim Osadchiy (London, UK, Partner, Osadchiy Dispute Resolution LLP)

Post Event Report

Written by Maxim Osadchiy (Young ICCA Regional Representative for the UK)

On 24 March 2025, Young ICCA and Kluwer Arbitration hosted a virtual workshop entitled “The Art of Award Writing—Mastery Beyond the Basics”. The session aimed to uncover what makes an excellent award and provide young arbitration practitioners with the tools and techniques necessary to excel in award writing, paving the way for future appointments and a successful career as an arbitrator.

The panel featured experienced arbitrators, counsel and former senior members of leading arbitral institutions: Sarah Lancaster (Arbitrator and Chambers Director, Arbitration Chambers), Jennifer Kirby (International Arbitrator), and Dr Rémy Gerbay (Partner, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP; Lecturer, Queen Mary University of London). The event was moderated by Maxim Osadchiy, Founder of Osadchiy Dispute Resolution LLP and Teaching Associate at Queen Mary University of London.

Awards—and Awards: The Anna Karenina Principle

The panel began by identifying the hallmarks of an excellent award. Drawing from personal perspectives and reflecting on their time with the leading arbitral institutions, the panellists agreed that the Anna Karenina principle applies: excellent awards are in some sense all alike, while every horrible award is horrible in its own way. In addition to being clear, well-organized, and dealing with all material issues in a direct and fortnight manner, an excellent award would be:  

- ‘fit for purpose’, i.e. drafted with the demands and requirements of a particular case in mind, taking into account the nature and complexity of the case, value of claims, procedural posture, and any requirements at the seat of the arbitration.

- drafted with the relevant audience(s) in mind—the parties, the counsel, the potential enforcing court and the arbitral institution. In some jurisdictions, for example, awards for interest in an arbitral award will not be enforced by the relevant court unless a quantified number is provided. 

- the product of deep thinking and painstaking work over a long period of time. Writing a good award requires concentration and patience and is rarely produced if the arbitrator only comes to grips with the case just before the hearing.

Early Start—Better Draft: Planning matters

Having determined what makes a good award, the panel then shared their tips on how to produce one, starting with planning.

According to Remy, award drafting is an iterative process involving “heavy thinking” that should start early in the arbitration. Before the hearing, one should ideally have a draft of procedural history, summary of the parties’ arguments, and a detailed decision tree for each issue to be determined by the tribunal. The tribunal should, of course, keep an open mind and "update" and "revise" their thinking as the case progresses. No definitive view on any of the issues should be formed until after the hearing.

Jennifer echoed this view. One should start drafting the award immediately after the establishment of the Terms of Reference (if any) and / or Procedural Order 1 and stay on top of it as the case moves along. Before the hearing, it is prudent to ask and answer the following questions: “If I had to decide this case solely on the papers, could I do so?  If not, what information do I need and who can give it to me (e.g., the lawyers, a particular witness)? To the extent I consider I have sufficient information, how would I decide each material issue in the case and why?” The hearing is an opportunity to gain any further information required and to test the arbitrator’s understanding of the case. You then revise and update the draft award in light of what you had learned during the hearing.

The inherent risk of waiting until after the hearing to start drafting is that you only realise at that late stage what additional information you need, Sarah observed. One should not start too early, however, with summarising the parties’ positions, as the parties’ positions will often shift over the course of the written phase of the arbitration - it is therefore better to wait until after the Statement of Reply. While it is true that the parties’ positions may shift further still during an oral hearing, the benefits of gaining an advanced understanding of the case, and identifying early points you require further input on, outweigh the risk of any inefficiencies arising from needing to update a draft of the award.

A box-ticking? Storytelling? How to think about award writing?

Award drafting is akin to storytelling. It needs to be clear to the reader who the parties are, their relationship, how the dispute arose, what the decision is, and how you have reached it. There is also, the speakers agreed, a degree of box-ticking: there are certain things that should be included so as to ensure that the award is enforceable and complies with any requirements of the administering institution. But that should not detract from a good narrative flow and should instead be built into it.

An award is also a means of ‘credibilizing’ the process. According to Remy, it ought to be a standalone document capable of being read as such by an outsider. Any reader, no matter their knowledge of arbitration law and practice, should be able to understand what happened in the case and have confidence in the process that led to the award. 

Procedural history: How long is long enough?

How one handles this depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the case and any preferences of the administering institution. If there were significant procedural incidents, a longer procedural history may be justified. This is particularly important if a party is making a due process argument concerning the tribunal’s decision on a procedural point. Similarly, if there are mandatory law issues (e.g. sanctions) that may attract scrutiny from national courts, or one of the parties fails to participate in the proceedings, these matters may need to be treated more fulsomely in the award. 

Sarah mentioned once having to produce a longer procedural history than might have otherwise been warranted, because one party had been unrepresented in the arbitration and had participated through non-legal senior staff. It was important to ensure that it was clear (both to an enforcing court and also to the unrepresented party, who ultimately did not succeed in their defence) that the party had had full opportunity to present its case and that the process had been fair.       

Summary of parties’ arguments: Harder than it sounds 

This may be one of the trickier aspects of award writing. On the one hand, you do not want to give the impression to the parties (especially to the losing one) that you have failed to grasp their arguments or any particular points in full. At the same time, not all arguments move the needle and need to be discussed in the award. Striking the right balance is not always easy. 

One way to handle this according to Jennifer is not to summarise the parties’ positions but to take each claim in turn, explain briefly (e.g., one paragraph) what is being sought and on what basis, and then explain in detail why the arbitrator is granting it (in whole or in part) or denying it. This includes explaining why every argument raised by the losing party did not carry the day, even if by simply noting that certain arguments need not be determined because they are moot in light of other findings. 

Sarah’s suggested approach is to include a very high-level summary of the claim and any defence at the start of the section on the parties’ arguments. Where possible, you should ask the parties to produce an agreed list of issues, and then address the summary of the parties’ positions issue by issue - or, where appropriate, group issues together. If the decision on one issue renders other issues redundant, it might be appropriate to address that one first in the reasoning part, but this may vary.

Tribunal’s analysis: How much reasoning is required?

There does not seem to be a simple answer to this question but one tip that is sometimes mentioned is: “the more controversial the point, the more reasoning is required.”

The panellists agreed that, as a general rule, this could be a helpful guiding principle in most cases. One reason for that is to ensure that the losing party sees that all of its arguments were considered and understands why they were rejected. However, where a claim can be dismissed based on a single issue (e.g., statute of limitations) and that issue is a close call, it can sometimes be prudent to address other issues as well. In this regard, the tribunal might wish to note that—even if the close call had been decided in the losing party’s favour—the losing party still would have lost, albeit on other grounds. This approach helps reduce the risk of challenges on the ground that the tribunal failed to consider one or more of the arguments, thereby denying the losing party due process. 

Tips on finalising the award: ‘Paranoid read-through’ 

You’ve dotted all your i’s and crossed all your t’s and feel ready to share the final draft of the award. Don’t—yet! Pause. Read it again one last time, sentence by sentence, and ask yourself after each one: Is there anything debatable in this sentence? How might a critically minded person challenge this sentence? You might be surprised by what this last-minute critical audit reveals about what seemed like a magnum opus mere moments ago! 

Another tip is to look back—again—at all of the evidence and authorities after finalising the draft award. Check not only what is in the award but, crucially, what is not in the award. This would help ensure you haven’t missed anything relevant to your decision and guard against confirmation bias—a tendency to focus more on documents that support your tentative conclusion and less on those that contradict it. It is time consuming and, no doubt, painful. But, as with many other things in award writing, there is no shortcut to doing a good job.