ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules Interpretation Series:Article 42 “Correction of the Award”

The making of an award marks the Arbitral Tribunal’s determination of the parties’ rights and obligations. An international arbitration expert once suggested: An award is a letter written by the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties to settle their disputes. The rigor and accuracy of this letter represent the tribunal's professionalism and its resolve to resolve the dispute. Therefore, before the award is made, extreme caution should be exercised, whether in the statement of facts or the tribunal’s reasoning. At the same time, if there are clerical errors, computational mistakes, typographical omissions, or similar errors, although these issues do not involve the core or substance of the tribunal's judgment, ignoring them could, at best, cause ambiguity and, at worst, hinder the smooth enforcement of the award and damage the seriousness and authority of the arbitration proceedings. For this reason, modern arbitration rules generally establish a correction of award mechanism as an important procedural remedy.

I. Rule Text

Article 42. Correction of the Award

1. If the award contains clerical, computational or typographical errors or other similar errors, the parties may notify the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court of Arbitration and other parties in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the award and request the Arbitral Tribunal to make corrections.

2. If the Arbitral Tribunal considers that the reasons for corrections are justified, it shall make corrections in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid written request.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal may, on its own initiative, make such corrections in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date of award.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal may make a correction directly on the original award or make a separate correction in writing for this purpose, and the direct correction or the separate correction shall constitute a part of the award.

Ⅱ. The Main Purpose and Significance Analysis of “Correction of the Award”

This article aims to provide an efficient and proceduralized error correction and improvement mechanism, specifically designed to rectify non-substantive errors in the award, thereby ensuring the remediability of textual errors in the award and guaranteeing that the award can be smoothly recognized and enforced.

First, it helps facilitate timely error correction. This article forms a cohesive award quality control system with the preceding article. “Review of the Draft Award”. Scrutiny is preventative, focusing on identifying potential issues beforehand, while correction is remedial, specifically addressing textual errors that have occurred. Together, they work to uphold the quality standards of award documents.

Second, it helps protect parties’ rights and interests. This article grants parties the right to proactively apply for correction upon discovering errors, providing a remedy channel for parties, especially those whose interests might be adversely affected by the error. For example, a computational error in a key figure could directly lead to a significant discrepancy in the amount payable. Compared to re-arbitration or initiating litigation, parties can obtain correction at a lower cost through the correction procedure, ensuring they can realize their rights based on the correct award.

Third, it helps maintain the finality and authority of the award. The fundamental principle of “arbitration award shall be final and binding” requires that an award becomes binding once made. However, textual errors might cause parties to doubt the certainty and authority of the award, even providing an excuse for non-performance or challenging the award. The existence of the correction procedure does not negate the finality of the award; rather, it consolidates finality by providing an official, formal channel for correction, eliminating disputes arising from obvious errors.

Ⅲ. Analysis of Article 42, Paragraph 1: Parties’ Right and Requirements to Request Correction

This paragraph establishes the “party-initiated path” for commencing the correction procedure, specifying the prerequisites, subject, form, and time limit for the request.

First, the scope of correctable errors is strictly limited to formal errors. Similar to international rules such as the ICC Arbitration Rules①, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules②, the LCIA Arbitration Rules③ and the ICDR International Arbitration Rules④, this paragraph explicitly enumerates correctable errors as “clerical, computational or typographical errors or other similar errors”. This definition firmly confines the scope of correction to non-substantive formal defects. Examples include errors in writing party names or addresses, computational mistakes in amounts, interest rates, or quantities, typographical omissions or duplications, or resulting semantic ambiguities. Consequently, this provision explicitly excludes substantive issues such as the Arbitral Tribunal’s errors in fact-finding, application of law, admission of evidence, or insufficiency of reasoning, thereby avoiding any impact on the finality of the arbitral award.

Second, the requesting party and formal requirements. Any party has the right to request. The formal requirement is that the request must be made in writing and oral requests are invalid. The written form ensures the seriousness of the correction procedure. It is important to note that the requesting party must simultaneously notify the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court of Arbitration, and the other parties. Notifying the tribunal constitutes the request; notifying the Court of Arbitration is based on its administrative function, facilitating procedural tracking; notifying other parties ensures their right to be informed, consistent with the principles of due process. The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules②, the LCIA Arbitration Rules③, the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules⑤ and the ICDR International Arbitration Rules④ similarly require that a party requesting correction must notify the other parties.

Third, the time limit for the request is within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. The ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules stipulate a period identical to that in Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China⑥, the ICC Arbitration Rules①, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules② and the ICDR International Arbitration Rules④. Other institutions prescribe similar periods, such as the 28 days provided by The London Court of International Arbitration③ and the 20 days provided by the American Arbitration Association⑤. This provision aims to encourage parties to review the award promptly, quickly identify and resolve formal issues, thereby maintaining the stability of the award's effect.

Ⅳ. Analysis of Article 42, Paragraph 2: Review and Making of Corrections upon Party Request

This paragraph establishes the specific operational framework for the Arbitral Tribunal to handle party requests for correction, with the core being the Arbitral Tribunal’s review responsibility and processing time limit.

First, the Arbitral Tribunal possesses substantive review authority. The prerequisite for the tribunal to make a correction is its determination that the party’s reasons are justified. This grants the Arbitral Tribunal the power to substantively review the party’s request. The key to this review is determining whether the issue targeted by the correction request indeed falls within the category of “clerical, computational or typographical errors or other similar errors” as described in the preceding paragraph. If it qualifies as a formal error, the tribunal should deem the reasons justified. If it is a substantive issue, and a party attempts to modify the substantive award under the guise of a “correction”, the Arbitral Tribunal should deem the reasons unjustified and reject the request. This review power aims to uphold the finality of the award, ensuring the correction procedure is not misappropriated as an appeal or retrial on substantive matters.

Second, the Arbitral Tribunal shall make the correction within 30 days. The 30-day period is mandatory and reflects the value of efficiency pursued by the correction procedure. This period commences from the date the tribunal formally receives the party’s written request, typically transmitted via the Court of Arbitration.

Finally, the correction must be made in writing, ensuring the formality, traceability, and legal validity of the correction action.

From a comparative law perspective, the Arbitral Tribunal’s substantive review authority and the requirement to issue a decision in writing within 30 days are internationally common provisions.①④⑦⑧⑨ However, some arbitration institutions provide for longer or shorter periods, such as the 45 days provided by UNCITRAL② and the 28 days provided by LCIA.③

Ⅴ. Analysis of Article 42, Paragraph 3: Procedure for Correction on the Tribunal’s Own Initiative

This paragraph grants the Arbitral Tribunal autonomy and a self-supervisory duty regarding the correction procedure.

First, the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to make corrections on its own initiative. Unlike the procedure initiated upon party request in the preceding paragraph, this paragraph authorizes the tribunal to initiate the correction procedure on its own motion, without needing a party request. This means the Arbitral Tribunal’s responsibility extends beyond the adjudicative phase; for a reasonable period after the award is issued, it retains an obligation to ensure the accuracy of the document it produced.

Second, the time limit for the Arbitral Tribunal to exercise this power is within 45 days from the date of the award. This period is longer than the 30-day period for party requests and commences not from the party’s receipt, but from the date the award is made by the tribunal. This period represents the final window of opportunity for the tribunal to proactively correct errors. After this period, the tribunal generally no longer has the power to make any changes to the award (except for exceptions provided for in other articles of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules or applicable law, such as an additional award on omitted claims). Compared to provisions in other arbitration institutions, such as the 28 days provided by LCIA③, the 30 days provided by ICC① and UNCITRAL②, the 45-day period stipulated by ICDPASO is longer, providing the tribunal with a more sufficient self-checking time.

Third, similar to the procedure for party-requested corrections, corrections made by the tribunal on its own initiative must also be made in writing.

Ⅵ. Analysis of Article 42, Paragraph 4: Form and Legal Effect of Correction

This paragraph addresses the crucial legal effect of the correction action.

First, there are two forms of correction. One is making the correction directly on the original award, suitable for simple, clear errors. The tribunal may directly correct the original award, with the correction confirmed by the signature of all arbitrators or an authorized arbitrator, or by affixing a correction stamp. The second is issuing a separate correction document. For numerous or more complex errors, the tribunal may prepare an independent correction document, specifying which award it corrects and detailing the corrections.

Second, the legal effect of the correction is that it constitutes a part of the award. This is the core of this paragraph: In the first place, whether a direct correction on the original or a separate document, its legal effect is fully integrated into the original award, becoming an inseparable component. In the second place, the corrected content automatically replaces the corrected parts in the original award; the text of the award shall be based on the corrected version. In the third place, the enforceability of the corrected award covers all content as corrected. A party may apply to a court for recognition and enforcement based on the entire corrected award.

From a comparative law perspective, the SIAC Arbitration Rules are similar to the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules, adopting both methods of direct correction on the award and issuing a separate correction document, and stipulating that the correction forms part of the award.⑨ The ICC Arbitration Rules and the LCIA Arbitration Rules stipulate that a separate addendum should be issued, but this addendum likewise forms part of the award and has the same effect as the award.①③ The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the SCC Arbitration Rules, and the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules only state that the correction shall be made in writing, but also provide that the correction constitutes part of the award, subject to the relevant provisions on the form and effect of awards.②⑦⑧ The ICDR International Arbitration Rules require the Arbitral Tribunal’s correction to state the reasons and form part of the arbitration award.④

Ⅶ. Conclusion

Article 42 of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules limits the scope of correction to rectifying formal errors. This self-limitation precisely upholds the finality and seriousness of the Arbitral Tribunal’s substantive award. Simultaneously, by setting clear time limits, it ensures the efficiency of the correction procedure, preventing the proceedings from falling into uncertainty due to minor flaws. In practice, this article works synergistically with the scrutiny procedure in Article 41 to reduce the risk of ICDPASO arbitral awards being challenged due to technical defects, demonstrating ICDPASO’s professional commitment to the parties.