"Q. Can you show in all the proceedings that took place during the case, that once you or your lawyer approached the arbitrator and said - you are not authorized to discuss this matter and it is outside your authority?
- If it came to the arbitrator, then he probably had the opportunity to discuss it, but I think it was completely outrageous, that he was wrong, that it was completely one-sided against this arbitrator."
(Transcript p. 3, paras. 22-25)
And:
"Q. Was there any issue during the arbitration or in the arbitration award that the writer wrote that he did not discuss any of your causes of action?
- He discussed everything, but he was wrong about most things. It was just one-sided."
(Transcript, p. 4, paras. 11-13)
- The rule is that the court does not position itself as an appellate court for arbitral awards, and will limit its judicial review only to the procedural aspect of the arbitration proceeding, according to the explicit grounds for annulment set forth in section 24 of the Arbitration Law. The case law further determined that the court will interpret the grounds for annulment listed in the law in a narrow and precise manner, in order to fulfill the purposes of the arbitration proceeding andthe Arbitration Law [see Civil Appeal Authority 113/87 Ayalon Highway Company inTax Appeal v. Yehuda Shtang & Sons Ltd., 45(5) 511 (1991); Civil Appeal Authority 3680/00 Aharon Gamlieli v. Magshimim Cooperative Village for Agricultural Settlement Ltd., 57 (6) 605 (2003) (hereinafter - the Gamlieli case); Civil Appeal Authority 5991/02 Ofra Goertzman v. Ruth Fried, 59(5) 1 (2004)].
As ruled in the Gamlieli case above:
"... Judicial intervention in the arbitrator's award is narrow and limited to defined grounds. These grounds are applied carefully and by way of a strict interpretation in order to give effect to the ruling and not to annul it. The court examining the award does not hear it as an appellate court, and it is not supposed to examine whether the arbitrator was right in his rulings or erred in them according to the law, since the cause of annulment for an error over the award is no longer one of the grounds for annulment (Ottolenghi [21], at pp. 425, 457-458; Civil Appeal 594/80 Eliav v. "Hasna" Israeli Insurance Company in Tax Appeal [7], at p. 547; Civil Appeal 393/79 Stella Car Service in Tax Appeal v. Ayalon Highway Company in Tax Appeal [8], at p. 715). All the more so he does not examine these questions where the arbitrator is free from the substantive law and even from the rules of law and evidence. The court is also not entitled to put the judgment to the test of its own criticism - whether it is right or unjust in accordance with its own perception. He must put the arbitrator's award to the test on fundamental questions that are primarily concerned with examining the basic integrity of the arbitration proceeding - the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the appointment of an arbitrator lawfully, rulings within the boundaries of authority, the preservation of the rules of natural justice, compliance with the standards of public policy, and a host of other matters. The spillover of the judicial review of the arbitrator's award beyond the narrow grounds of review as aforesaid violates the proper balance between the independence and freedom of action that the legislature sought to grant to the arbitral institution and the public's interest in maintaining only narrow judicial supervision over the integrity of the arbitration proceedings."
- The case law further clarified that an error in the arbitrator's award, whether factual or legal, is not included among the grounds for annulment set out in the Arbitration Law, and the existing grounds should not be interpreted as including this ground:
"In the field of arbitration, phenomena of deviation from the arbitrator's authority, or the action of an arbitrator without authority, do not include an error in the arbitrator's award, whether a factual error or a legal error. The legislature consciously and deliberately refrained from including the cause of error over the award between the statutory grounds for annulment, thereby deviating from the state of affairs that existed in the past, prior to the entry into force of the law (Explanatory Notes to the Arbitration Bill, 5727-1967, Search Order / Entry Order 717 (5727) 64, 70; Habibullah, ibid.). Over the years, the court has consistently blocked the attempt to breathe life into life on the grounds of "error over the arbitral award" as a reason for annulling it, which has been raised frequently, whether directly or indirectly. Such attempts were made, inter alia, by using the cause of cancellation for exceeding authority due to an error, and they did not succeed (Civil Appeal Authority 113/87 Ayalon Highway Company in Tax Appeal v. Yehuda Shtang & Sons Ltd., IsrSC 55(5) 511 (1991) (hereinafter - the Ayalon Highway case)).