Therefore, this argument should be rejected.
Annulment of the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitrator did not discuss all the matters submitted for his decision - Section 24(5) of the Arbitration Law
- Under the heading of the cause of annulment in section 24(5) of the Arbitration Law, the Applicant claimed that the arbitrator did not discuss, or at least "did not discuss as it should be", his claims regarding the mental anguish and professional damage caused to him by the Respondent, and did not discuss, or at least "did not give sufficient weight", to the Respondent's "admission" (that she paid the Applicant a grant for 4 League Points and a Retention Grant only after he submitted his claim to the Arbitration Institution) and did not charge the Respondent with exemplary expenses and fees.
- From a review of the arbitration award, we got the impression that the arbitrator gave his opinion and discussed all the matters that were placed before him, even if not to the satisfaction of the applicant. Although there are matters in which the arbitrator sufficed with only concise reasoning, for example with regard to the mental anguish and professional damage claimed by theApplicant, we have not found that this is sufficient to annul the arbitral award, especially when the reason for the conciseness of the arbitrator's words was the lack of detail, reasoning or presentation of evidence by the Applicant, despite the fact that he was given full opportunities to do so.
- With regard to the Applicant's arguments regarding the Respondent's obligation to pay expenses and fees, it is clear that it is not the place for the Tribunal to intervene in the arbitrator's considerations with regard to the award of costs in the proceeding that was conducted before it.
- Therefore, these arguments should also be rejected.
Annulment of the arbitral award on the grounds that its content is contrary to public policy and on the grounds that there is a ground on which a court would have annulled a final award that is not appealed - Sections 24(9)-(10) of the Arbitration Law
- With regard to the Applicant's arguments that the arbitration award should be ordered to be annulled by virtue of sections 24(9) and 24(10) of the Arbitration Law, we found that these arguments were made in vain, with the only reason provided by the Applicant being the accumulation of all of his arguments discussed above and the circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the arbitrator's award was ostensibly contrary to the court's precedents, which the Applicant did not bother to elaborate.
- The rule is that the use of the grounds for annulment listed in sections 24(9) and 24(10) will be done sparingly, and that these grounds are reserved for extreme and exceptional cases.
Thus, for example, with regard to the annulment of an arbitral award on grounds that are contrary to public policy, according to section 24(9), it was held that "the power to annul by virtue of this cause of action will be exercised, mainly, where the content of the arbitral award is likely to harm the interests, principles and values that our society seeks to uphold and preserve" [Additional Civil Hearing 9563/03 Yosef Kaduri v. Naim Kalif (Golan) (published in Nevo, 01.04.2004)].