Why do courts usually avoid reviewing an arbitrator’s findings of fact?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Arbitration Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Courts generally avoid reviewing an arbitrator’s findings of fact to ensure that the arbitration process serves as the final resolution of a dispute rather than the beginning of protracted litigation.1

By restricting judicial control to specific matters—such as arbitrator misconduct or the denial of a fair hearing—the legal system upholds the integrity of arbitration as a quasi-judicial procedure. Because the parties choose arbitration for its efficiency and finality, allowing courts to re-examine factual findings or the application of law would undermine the purpose of the agreement and the authority of the arbitral award.1