A ground or a no
Before filing, a written audit answering the only question that matters: does a statutory ground exist, or only a bad outcome. Filing hopeless challenges costs money and credibility.
Set-aside & challenge of awards
The award is wrong in a way the law actually recognises — or it must be defended.
Set-aside proceedings under the Israeli Arbitration Law 1968: Aun & Co. challenges defective awards and defends sound ones against annulment attacks.
Set-aside is not an appeal. The Arbitration Law 1968 lists closed, exhaustive grounds — no valid agreement, excess of mandate, a party denied a proper opportunity to be heard, defective tribunal composition, and the other statutory defects — and Israeli courts police the line between genuine grounds and disappointment dressed as one. The firm works both sides of that line: building challenges where the process truly failed, and dismantling challenges brought to relitigate a lost case.
The work spans
- Set-aside applications on the statutory grounds
- Defence of awards against annulment attacks
- Excess-of-mandate analysis against the clause and submissions
- Due-process challenges: hearing rights and evidence exclusion
- Partial set-aside and remission strategies preserving the rest
- The tribunal decided claims nobody submitted, or granted relief the clause never allowed.
- Evidence central to your case was excluded and the award turned on the gap it left.
- The winning side's relationship to an arbitrator surfaced only after the award.
- You won a clean award and the debtor's set-aside is transparently a payment-delay device.
The award is audited against the mandate line by line: what the clause permitted, what the parties submitted, what the tribunal decided — the gaps are the case. Due-process grounds are tested against the procedural record with cold honesty, since courts distinguish sharply between a party denied a hearing and a party that lost one. Defending, the firm reframes each ground as the merits complaint it usually is, and asks for costs accordingly.
04 · What you get
Mandate forensics
Clause, submissions and award mapped against each other — excess of authority is proved by documents, and the firm builds that proof precisely.
Awards defended fast
Annulment attacks met with tight timetables and cost pressure, so a stalling challenge stops paying for itself.
A typical engagement: an award grants a remedy on a theory neither party pleaded, resting on a contract outside the arbitration clause's scope. The firm builds the excess-of-mandate challenge from the submissions record while seeking partial set-aside that leaves the properly decided portions standing.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
On what grounds can an arbitration award be set aside in Israel?
Only the closed statutory list in the Arbitration Law 1968 — including no valid arbitration agreement, excess of the arbitrator's authority, denial of a proper opportunity to present a case, and defective appointment. An error of law or fact is, by itself, not a ground.
How long do I have to apply to set aside an award?
The window is short — measured in weeks from the award's delivery under the statutory framework, with limited room for extension. Treat receipt of the award as the start of a hard clock and get the grounds audit done within days.
If part of the award is defective, does the whole award fall?
Not necessarily. Courts can set aside severable parts, remit issues to the tribunal, or confirm the balance. Partial strategies often serve both sides better than all-or-nothing warfare — and the firm frames applications with that judicial preference in mind.